Gladson v. Brown, 371
| Decision Date | 06 November 1961 |
| Docket Number | No. 371,371 |
| Citation | 134 So.2d 660 |
| Parties | James W. GLADSON v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana, et al. |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US |
Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellants.
Mansour & Lauve, by Lewis O. Lauve, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellee.
Before TATE, FRUGE and SAVOY, JJ.
This is an appeal by the Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana, and the employer of plaintiff from a judgment of the district court granting plaintiff unemployment compensation under the provisions of LSA-R.S. 23:1471--1713.
The facts are not in dispute and are substantially as follows:
On April 7, 1961, the Board of Review for the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana mailed to plaintiff a decision of the Board that plaintiff, a former employee of A. L. Varnado, d/b/a Southern Mercantile Company, was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation for the reason that he left his employment voluntarily without cause connected with his employment, as provided for by LSA-R.S. 23:1601(1).
LSA-R.S. 23:1601 provides in part as follows:
'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
* * *'
Plaintiff appealed the administrative finding to the appeals referee of the said agency, who affirmed the finding. He then appealed the decision to the Board of Review for the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor of the State of Louisiana, which likewise affirmed the ruling of the appeals referee. Finally, plaintiff appealed from the last decision to the district court which reversed the decision of the Board of Review and granted plaintiff unemployment benefits under the act. Appeal to this Court followed.
The Board of Review found the following facts in connection with the instant case, to-wit:
'There is sufficient evidence to support the findings that the claimant left suitable employment without good cause connected with the employment.'
Plaintiff did not contradict the facts as found by the Board of Review.
The judicial standard of reviewing findings of the administrative agency in question have recently been summarized in Broussard v. Administrator (Ct.App., 1 Cir. 1960), 121 So.2d 268, 270, to be as follows:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Neal v. Administrator, Division of Employment Sec., Dept. of Labor
...of a physical condition directly attributable to her employment. The situation is comparable to that presented in Gladson v. Brown (La.App.) 134 So.2d 660 (3d Cir. 1961), where it was held that an employee, who did not return to work because he was hospitalized for over two months due to an......
-
Algiers Homestead Ass'n v. Brown
...however imperative, was not proved to be connected with the employment. See Sheffield v. Heard, La.App., 92 So.2d 295; Gladson v. Brown, La.App. 134 So.2d 660. Of course there is no connection whatever between Mrs. Migaud's pregnancy and her employment, and when she left on account of pregn......
-
Napoleon v. Administrator, Division of Emp. Sec.
...his job, the employee may be considered to have abandoned his job without good cause connected with his employment. Gladson v. Brown, La.App. 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 660. The present circumstances, however, present a different type-situation than that in the decisions relied upon by the agency an......
-
Hargrove v. Administrator, Division of Employment Sec.
...Algiers Homestead Ass'n v. Brown, La., 167 So.2d 349 (rendered July 1, 1964), reversing La.App., 158 So.2d 863; Gladson v. Brown, La.App., 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 660; Baker v. Sharp, La.App. 1 Cir., 110 So.2d 209; Sheffield v. Heard, La.App. 2 Cir., 92 So.2d In reversing the agency determination......