Cotright v. Doyal, 10748
Decision Date | 24 January 1967 |
Docket Number | No. 10748,10748 |
Citation | 195 So.2d 176 |
Parties | Murley M. COTRIGHT, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. F. C. DOYAL, Jr., Administrator of Division of Employment Security Department of Labor, State of Louisiana and the Shreveport Club, Defendants-Appellants. |
Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Marion Weimer, Melvin L. Bellar, and James A. Piper, Baton Rouge, for appellants.
Ike F. Hawkins, Jr., Shreveport, for appellee.
Before GLADNEY, AYRES and BOLIN, JJ.
The plaintiff herein, Murley M. Cotright, instituted this suit to obtain judicial relief from an administrative ruling by the Division of Unemployment Security of the State Department of Labor, which denied her claim for unemployment compensation. F. C. Doyal, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Unemployment Security of the Department of Labor and The Shreveport Club were named as defendants . The District Court reversed and directed the agency to recognize claimant's eligibility for unemployment benefits, from which decision defendants have appealed.
The record reveals no dispute as to the controlling facts as determined by the administrative agency. As found by the Board of Review, the facts are: The claimant worked for The Shreveport Club from June 17, 1957 to January 31, 1966. She was employed as a salad girl. The claimant has children living in California and she decided to leave her employment and move to California to live with her children and gave her employer notice on January 15, 1966 that she was leaving her employment effective January 31, 1966. On January 16, 1966 the claimant's aunt became ill and she decided not to leave Shreveport. On January 18, 1966 claimant advised her employer she was not leaving, but was informed that a replacement had already been hired. The claimant became unemployed on January 31, 1966.
The rights of plaintiff are regulated by the Louisiana Unemployment Compensation Act, LSA-R.S. 23:1471 et seq. which sets forth specifically the ground on which the agency held the employee was disqualified for benefits. LSA-R.S. 23:1601 provides:
'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
'(1) If the administrator finds that he has left his employment without good cause connected with his employment * * *.'
In Lacombe v. Sharp, La.App., 99 So.2d 387 (2nd Cir. 1957) this court stated:
Our research has not disclosed Louisiana jurisprudence analogous to the case herein presented. Cases in Iowa, Connecticut and Pennsylvania which have come to our attention are pertinent. McCarthy v. Iowa Employment Security Commission, 247 Iowa 760, 76 N.W.2d 201, 204 (1956) decided by the Supreme Court of Iowa held that the words '* * * if he has left his work * * *' will be construed to mean '* * * if he has become unemployed.' The court went further to point out that the interpretation so given was in accord with the provisions of the statute requiring the compulsory setting aside of reserves 'for the benefit of persons unemployed through no fault of their own.' The Superior Court of Connecticut in Mauro v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 19 Conn.Sup. 362, 113 A.2d 866 (1954) considered an unemployment compensation...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Dillard Dept. Stores, Inc. v. Polinsky
...v. Grant Comm. Hosp., 138 Mich.App. 295, 360 N.W.2d 599 (1984); West Jordan v. Morrison, 656 P.2d 445 (Utah 1982); Cotright v. Doyal, 195 So.2d 176 (La.App.1967); Mauro v. Administrator, 19 Conn.Supp. 362, 113 A.2d 866 (1954). As noted by Dillard, other states deny benefits to an employee w......
-
Wright v. Dept. of Employment Services
... ... See, e.g., Mauro v. Administrator, 19 Conn.Supp. 362, 113 A.2d 866 (Super.Ct. 1954); Cotright v. Doyal, 195 So.2d 176, 179 (La.App. 1967). Others — most notably Pennsylvania — have held ... ...
-
LeBeau v. Commissioner of Dept. of Employment and Training
...charged situation and sought to rescind two hours later, denial of benefits improper absent prejudice to employer); Cotright v. Doyal, 195 So.2d 176 (La.Ct.App.1967) (plaintiff who retracted notice of leaving and remained available to continue employment not voluntarily unemployed). Cf. Str......
-
Porter v. Unemployment Appeals Com'n
... ... Mauro v. Adm'r, Unemployment Comp. Act, 19 Conn.Supp. 362, 113 A.2d 866, 866-67 (1954); Cotright v. F.C. Doyal, 195 So.2d 176, 179 (La.Ct.App.1967); Coleman v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 662 ... ...