Murphy v. Fascio, 73-309-M
| Decision Date | 23 June 1975 |
| Docket Number | No. 73-309-M,73-309-M |
| Citation | 340 A.2d 137,115 R.I. 33 |
| Parties | Kathleen MURPHY v. Albert FASCIO, Chairman of the Board of Review, Department of Employment Security, et al. P. |
| Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
This is a petition for employment security benefits as provided by the Rhode Island Employment Security Act, G.L.1956 (1968 Reenactment) chapters 42 through 44 of title 28. The record discloses that the petitioner had left her employment with a manufacturing concern located in this state in pursuance of her intention to marry and thereafter to reside with her fiance at his residence is Georgia. The petitioner filed her claim for these unemployment benefits on October 2, 1972. The Director of the Department of Employment Security denied the claim on the ground that under § 28-44-17 the claimant had voluntarily left her job without good cause and was, therefore, ineligible for the unemployment relief requested. The petitioner exhausted her administrative remedies and subsequently appealed an adverse decision of the department's board of review to the Superior Court. On November 19, 1973, the trial justice entered a judgment denying and dismissing the petitioner's complaint and affirming the majority decision of the board of review. Her petition for a writ of certiorari having been granted, the petitioner now seeks review of that judgment by this court.
It is not disputed that petitioner's sole reason for leaving her job in Rhode Island was to marry and reside with her fiance in another state. Section 28-44-17 provides that an individual who leaves work voluntarily without good cause shall be ineligible for waiting-period credit or benefits. The only question raised by this appeal is whether petitioner's reason for leaving her job constituted 'good cause' for purposes of § 28-44-17.
This court has been occasion to construe 'good cause' in several cases. In Harraka v. Board of Review of Dep't of Employment Security, 98 R.I. 197, 200 A.2d 595 (1964), the employee left his job with a chemical manufacturer because the chemicals with which he had to work caused discoloration of both his skin and his clothing. This court held that the employee's reason for leaving constituted good cause and accordingly reversed the decision of the Superior Court, which had affirmed the ruling of the board of review.
In Whitelaw v. Board of Review of Dep't of Employment Security, 95 R.I. 154, 185 A.2d 104 (1962), we held that the review board's finding that pushing a cart was part of the petitioner's job was supported by substantial evidence and, thus, not to be disturbed by the reviewing court. Having so concluded, we affirmed the decision of the board that the petitioner's leaving his job because he was required to push a cart did not constitute leaving for 'good cause.' Implicit in our affirmance was our decision as a matter of law that leaving one's employment simply because one chooses not be perform the tasks assigned him does not constitute leaving for good cause.
In Cahoone v. Board of Review of Dep't of Employment Security, 104 R.I. 503, 246 A.2d 213 (1968), we held that the trial justice had the power to affirm a decision of the board only if its findings were not 'clearly erroneous in view of the * * * substantial evidence' or 'arbitrary' or 'capricious' within the meaning of those terms as provided in the Administrative Procedures Act. General Laws 1956 (1969 Reenactment) § 42-35-15. In Cahoone the board found that the petitioner had left his employment after one day of work because he was assigned to drive a truck instead of to deliver mail (which he preferred) and because he was disgruntled when at the end of a long working day he found his car blocked. In deciding that the board had correctly determined that the petitioner had terminated his employment without good cause, this court concluded that the board's...
To continue reading
Request your trial
- Homeowners Organized to Protect the Environment, Inc. v. First Nat. Bank of Barrington
-
Pettit v. Neb. Dep't of Corr. Servs.
...So.2d 1283 (Fla.App.1997) (collecting cases).15 See D'Ambra v. Board of Review, 517 A.2d 1039 (R.I.1986). See, also, Murphy v. Fascio, 115 R.I. 33, 340 A.2d 137 (1975).16 See Sawyer v. Department of Workforce Services, 345 P.3d 1253 (Utah 2015).17 Village of Hallam v. L.G. Barcus & Sons, 28......
-
Yamauchi v. Employment Sec. Dept.
...362, 56 N.E.2d 520 (1943); Wood v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 204 Pa.Super. 387, 204 A.2d 294 (1964); Murphy v. Fascio, 115 R.I. 33, 340 A.2d 137 (1975).9 Ms. Yamauchi also contends the court erred in refusing to compel the department to pay attorney fees immediately after t......
-
Kane v. Women and Infants Hosp. of Rhode Island
...employment after twice having been cleared of charges of stealing from his employer did not leave for good cause); Murphy v. Fascio, 115 R.I. 33, 37, 340 A.2d 137, 139 (1975) (leaving job to marry and move to another state is not good cause). Prior to today, however, this court has not cons......