Cavender v. Donovan, 83-7237
| Decision Date | 29 January 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-7237,83-7237 |
| Citation | 752 F.2d 1376 |
| Parties | Helen R. CAVENDER, Petitioner, v. Raymond J. DONOVAN, Secretary of Labor, Respondent. |
| Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — Ninth Circuit |
John William Cumming, Eureka, Cal., for petitioner.
Barbara J. Johnson, Dept. of Labor, Washington, D.C., for respondent.
Petition for Review from the Order of the United States Department of Labor.
Before GOODWIN, SCHROEDER, and FARRIS, Circuit Judges.
This case arises under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-250, Secs. 201-13, 92 Stat. 163, 172-82. The Secretary of Labor denied Helen R. Cavender's claim for benefits under the Redwood Employee Protection Program (REPP) because she was not an "affected employee" as defined in the Act but voluntarily quit in order to follow her husband to a new job in Oregon. We affirm.
Under the Redwood Act, employees who are eligible for California State Unemployment Compensation are eligible for REPP benefits if they are "affected employees." Section 201(11) defines affected employees as:
(11) "affected employee" means a covered employee who is either totally or partially laid off by an affected employer within a time period beginning on or after May 31, 1977, and ending September 30, 1980, unless extended, as provided in section 203, or is determined by the Secretary to be adversely affected by the expansion of the Redwood National Park. An employee shall be deemed adversely affected as of the date of the employee's layoff, downgrading, or termination.
Section 203 creates a conclusive presumption that employees totally or partially laid off between May 31, 1977, and September 30, 1980, were adversely affected by the expansion of the park. The petitioner in this case is claiming benefits for a period after she left her job on May 1, 1981, and is not entitled to such a presumption.
While the California State Unemployment Compensation Agency treated Helen's unemployment as "for good cause" and paid her compensation accordingly, it does not follow that her quitting made her an "affected employee for the purposes of the Redwood Act." She argued that the reason her husband went to Oregon to look for work was because he had been laid off within the meaning of the Redwood Act. That may be true, and Helen's subsequent decision to quit work and go with her husband was thus related in a social sense to the Redwood park expansion. But it...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Sorrels v. Donovan, 83-7600
...of 1978 ("Redwood Act"), 16 U.S.C. Sec. 79l (h) (1982), requiring us to interpret provisions of that Act. See, e.g., Cavendar v. Donovan, 752 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1985); Barnes v. Donovan, 720 F.2d 1111 (9th Lanning v. Marshall, 650 F.2d 1055 (9th Cir.1981). The Redwood Act was passed in 1978......
-
Holt v. Donovan
...for state unemployment benefits does not automatically entitle him to Redwood Act benefits. Sanders, at 922; see Cavender v. Donovan, 752 F.2d 1376, 1377 (9th Cir.1985). Accordingly, the petition for rehearing is GRANTED, and the Secretary's determination is REINHARDT, Circuit Judge, dissen......
-
Sanders v. Donovan, 84-7369
...cases that the applicable statutes did not permit the Secretary to reconsider those determinations of eligibility. In Cavender v. Donovan, 752 F.2d 1376 (9th Cir.1985), we upheld the Secretary's determination that an employee who voluntarily quit affected employment was not entitled to bene......