McGinnis v. Moreau

• Decision Date: 28 January 1963
• Docket Number: No. 757,757
• Citation: McGinnis v. Moreau, 149 So.2d 188 (La. App. 1963)
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana — District of US
• Parties: Thelma McGINNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. W. J. MOREAU et al., Defendants-Appellees.

Page 188

149 So.2d 188

Thelma McGINNIS, Plaintiff-Appellant, v.W. J. MOREAU et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 757.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

Jan. 28, 1963.

Rogers & McHale, by Robert McHale, Lake Charles, for plaintiff-appellant.

Jones, Kimball, Harper, Tete & Wetherill, by G. Allen Kimball, Lake Charles, Melvin L. Bellar and Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees.

Before TATE, HOOD and CULPEPPER, JJ.

TATE, Judge.

By these proceedings the claimant seeks judicial review of an administrative determination.The administrative agency held that she was not entitled to unemployment compensation benefits because she had voluntarily left her employment without good cause.

The claimant's employer, W. J. Moreau, and the Administrator of the Division of Employment Security were impleaded as opposing parties.

The trial court dismissed the claimant's suit for judicial review.By her appeal, the claimant contends that there was not sufficient evidence to support the administrative determination that she had voluntarily quit her job rather than had been fired.

The claimant and her employer had a disagreement concerning the amount of a Christmas bonus paid to her.The disagreement resulted when the claimant received a bonus less than that of another employee.At the administrative hearing, the uncontradicted evidence showed that the other employee had worked for longer than six months and was therefore entitled under a profit-sharing plan to receive the amount she did, whereas the claimant(who had worked for less than six months) was paid a bonus as a pure gratuity.

A claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits if he leaves his employment without good cause connected therewith, LSA-R.S. 23:1601(1).Under this statutory provision, mere dissatisfaction with working conditions does not constitute 'good cause' for quitting the employment, unless the dissatisfaction is based upon discriminatory or unfair or arbitrary treatment or is based upon a substantial change in wages or working conditions from those in force at the time the claimant's employment in his position commenced, so as to render the work unsuitable to the claimant, considering the worker's physical fitness, qualifications, earning ability, and the like.Flournoy v. Brown, La.App. 3 Cir., 140 So.2d 729;Robertson v. Brown, La.App. 1 Cir., 130 So.2d 226;Gilbert v. Hub City Iron Works, La.App. 3 Cir., 137 So.2d 359;Sewell v. Sharp, La.App. 2 Cir., 102 So.2d 259;48 Am.Jur.'Social Security', § 35.Within the meaning of the statute, since there was here no discriminatory treatment or violation of any previous agreement or understanding, the claimant thus did not have 'good cause' to leave her employment simply because she did not receive as large a Christmas gratuity as she had hoped for.

Under the present facts, therefore, the claimant's right to receive unemployment compensation depends upon whether she quit her job or whether on the other hand she was fired.(It is not contended that a discharge of her by her employer would have been based upon misconduct connected with her employment so as to disqualify her from receiving unemployment compensation benefits, LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2).)

At the administrative hearing, the claimant and her employer recollected differently as to whether, following their disagreement, the claimant had resigned or had been discharged from her employment.The administrative tribunal accepted the employer's version of the incident and held that the claimant had voluntarily quit her job.

Upon judicial review, the court must accept administrative determinations of fact 'if supported by sufficient evidence * * *, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law,'LSA-R.S. 23:1634.Judicial review of administrative findings is thus ordinarily limited to determining (1) whether sufficient competent evidence supports the board's findings of facts and (2) whether, accepting valid administrative determinations of fact, the claimant is or is not under these facts legally entitled to unemployment benefits.Lee v. Brown, La.App. 3 Cir., 148 So.2d 321;Turner v. Brown, La.App. 3 Cir., 134 So.2d 384;81 C.J.S.Social Security and Public Welfare§ 232, p. 337.

The principal contention upon appeal of the claimant's able counsel is that the administrative determination is not supported by sufficient evidence that the claimant quit rather than was fired.Counsel points out that, as the trial court noted, the evidence is susceptible to either interpretation.Counsel then urges that both the administrative agency and the courts are required to accept the most favorable to the...