757 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985), 82-7745, Holt v. Donovan

Docket Nº:82-7745.
Citation:757 F.2d 1045
Party Name:Curtis W. HOLT, Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor, Respondent.
Case Date:April 10, 1985
Court:United States Courts of Appeals, Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Page 1045

757 F.2d 1045 (9th Cir. 1985)

Curtis W. HOLT, Petitioner,


Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, United States

Department of Labor, Respondent.

No. 82-7745.

United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit

April 10, 1985

Argued and Submitted Sept. 14, 1983.

Page 1046

David S. Krueger, Warren R. Jensen, Esq. Stokes, Steeves, Warren & Jensen, Arcata, Cal., for petitioner.

Barbara J. Johnson, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Washington, D.C., for respondent.

On Petition for Review of a Final Determination of the Secretary of Labor.

Before KENNEDY and REINHARDT, Circuit Judges, and HOFFMAN, [*] District Judge.


We must decide whether a covered employee who quit his job is entitled to benefits under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978 ("Redwood Act"), Pub.L. No. 95-250, Secs. 201-213, 92 Stat. 163, 172-82. 1 Under the authority of Demarinis v. Donovan, 728 F.2d 1266 (9th Cir.1984), we must conclude that he is.

Holt was a foreman for Simpson Timber Company, an affected employer under the Redwood Act. See Redwood Act Secs. 201(6)-(9). On January 16, 1979, Holt informed his supervisor that he was under "tremendous pressure" and wanted to quit. Told to reconsider, the next day Holt repeated his desire to quit, and offered to give thirty days notice. Not wanting a dissatisfied employee, the supervisor told Holt to leave immediately but agreed to pay him through the end of the month.

Holt received California unemployment compensation benefits as an employee who quit "for cause," based on a determination by a California unemployment compensation administrative law judge that Holt quit on the verge of a nervous breakdown. Holt also applied to the California Employment Development Department (EDD) for benefits under the Redwood Employee Protection Program. Although initially deemed ineligible, Holt received an amended notice from the EDD, dated November 14, 1979, awarding him weekly layoff benefits under the Redwood Act.

Two days later, the EDD issued a legal opinion that a qualifying "layoff" within the meaning of the Act "occurs only when an affected employer has not made work available to any employee." The EDD issued internal memoranda in early 1980 explaining that when an employee voluntarily leaves available work, no qualifying layoff has occurred. As a result of this interpretation, "applicants...

To continue reading