Reetz v. Lutheran Health Systems
Citation | 611 N.W.2d 230,2000 SD 74 |
Decision Date | 07 June 2000 |
Docket Number | No. 21099.,21099. |
Parties | In the Matter of Arlene REETZ, Employee and Appellee, v. LUTHERAN HEALTH SYSTEMS, Employer and Appellant. |
Court | South Dakota Supreme Court |
Lynn A. Moran, Custer, for employee and appellee.
Donald A. Porter, and Patricia A. Meyers of Costello, Porter, Hill, Heisterkamp, Bushnell & Carpenter, Rapid City, for employer and appellant.
Drew C. Johnson, Aberdeen, for Department of Labor.
[¶ 1.] Lutheran Health Systems appeals a circuit court order affirming a decision by the South Dakota Department of Labor awarding Arlene Reetz unemployment insurance benefits. We reverse.
[¶ 2.] Reetz is a registered nurse and was a long time employee of Colonial Manor Nursing Home in Custer. Colonial Manor is affiliated with Lutheran Health Systems and the Black Hills Healthcare Network. By all accounts Reetz was a good and valued employee, having worked for Colonial Manor for approximately twenty-five years. Although she held various positions with the home over the years, Reetz was serving as a Medicare care plan coordinator at the time she left her employment.
[¶ 3.] On March 15, 1998, Reetz met with Nursing Service Administrator Jean Witt. Witt advised Reetz that, because of some company restructuring, her job would be eliminated as of April 1. Witt also gave Reetz job applications for several comparable positions that would be available at the home and told Reetz she could apply for them. Reetz did complete one application, however, before turning it in, she discovered a print copy of some e-mail correspondence among some papers she picked up in the office.1 The e-mail was between the home's administrator and its human resource officer and was apparently written with reference to a letter the administrator intended to issue to employees whose jobs were about to be eliminated, including Reetz.2 The administrator's e-mail inquiry stated:
The human resource officer responded:
Just asking!! Have you ever mentioned to Roger the question of severance for her or anyone else?
See ya.
[¶ 4.] Reetz was seriously offended by the tenor of the e-mail and believed it indicated an intention by her superiors not to hire her for the positions she was told were available. When asked during the administrative hearing about the reasons for leaving her employment, Reetz testified:
I did find this letter that was, ah, a very damaging letter I thought, and it was insulting. It was, I called it the suck up letter, hum, anyway, it's, hum, presented in our information. I think it was document no. 6, and, hum, I just didn't feel that, I just didn't feel that this was proper.
At a later point in the hearing, when asked why she didn't apply for any available jobs, Reetz answered:
[¶ 5.] After her discovery of the e-mail, Reetz decided not to apply for any of the positions available at the home. On March 19 she wrote a letter to the administrator charging that the elimination of her position was an attempt to get rid of her because of her seniority and higher pay. Noting that the home's rules entitled her to thirty days notice of termination and that she had not been provided with that notice, Reetz finished her letter by requesting severance pay and indicating her intention to follow grievance procedures if she was unsatisfied with her "termination." The administrator responded in writing that same day. She expressed disappointment over Reetz's failure to apply for any available positions and advised that those positions had closed as of ten o'clock that day. The administrator also notified Reetz that her position would not be terminated until May 1 which fulfilled the thirty day notice of termination requirement. The administrator's letter concluded:
[¶ 6.] On or about April 15, 1998, the human resources officer for the Black Hills Healthcare Network sent the following letter to Reetz:
Dear Arlie;
[¶ 7.] Both the human resources officer and Reetz's immediate supervisor met with Reetz on April 22 and Reetz rejected the foregoing offer of employment. Her last day of work was on April 30, 1998. She subsequently filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits that was denied on the basis that she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. An administrative appeal followed and a department of labor hearings officer conducted a hearing in August 1998. The hearings officer later entered findings of fact, conclusions of law and an order reversing the denial of benefits on the basis that Reetz did not quit without good cause and was not discharged for misconduct. Lutheran Health Systems appealed the department's decision to the circuit court which adopted the hearing officer's findings and conclusions and affirmed the allowance of benefits. Lutheran Health now appeals to this Court.
[¶ 8.] Did the circuit court err in affirming the Department of Labor's award of unemployment insurance benefits to Reetz?
[¶ 9.] The unemployment insurance law disqualifies individuals from receiving benefits if they: voluntarily quit employment without good cause; are discharged for work connected misconduct; or fail, without good cause, to accept suitable work when offered. See SDCL 61-6-13; SDCL 61-6-14; 61-6-15. Lutheran Health argues that Reetz quit without good cause or failed to accept suitable work when offered and, therefore, the circuit court erred in affirming the department's decision to award her benefits.
[¶ 10.] Neither of Lutheran Health's arguments are predicated on an entirely accurate assessment of the nature of Reetz's separation from her employment. This Court has not previously addressed a case where a person was notified of his impending discharge, was offered a different position by the same employer and then refused the offer of continued employment. Thus, it has never resolved whether this constitutes voluntarily quitting employment or refusing to accept suitable work when offered. Other courts have, however, addressed this issue. In Department of Educ. v. Atwater, 417 So.2d 749 (Fla. Dist.Ct.App.1982), the claimant was aware her part-time job would soon be terminated and refused the employer's offer of other suitable work. Because the work offer was extended while the claimant was still on the employer's payroll, the administrative...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Thompson v. System
...and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner); Reetz v. Lutheran Health Sys., 611 N.W.2d 230, 234 (S.D.2000) (good cause exists after an employee demonstrates (1) he left work primarily because of a work-connected factor of su......
-
Thompson v. Christiana Care Health Sys.
...and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner); Reetz v. Lutheran Health Sys., 611 N.W.2d 230, 234 (S.D. 2000) (good cause exists after an employee demonstrates (1) he left work primarily because of a work-connected factor of s......
-
Easton v. Hanson Sch. Dist. 30-1
...issues of job suitability and good cause are ones of law and subject to our review.” Reetz v. Lutheran Health Sys., 2000 S.D. 74, ¶ 14, 611 N.W.2d 230, 235,overruled on other grounds by Wells v. Howe Heating & Plumbing, Inc., 2004 S.D. 37, 677 N.W.2d 586 (quoting Gettig Eng'g v. Com., Unemp......
-
Wells v. Howe Heating & Plumbing
...standard. 1998 SD 8, ¶7, 575 NW2d at 229. Insofar as Lewis v. State Dep't of Transp., 2003 SD 82, 667 NW2d 283, and Reetz v. Lutheran Health Systems, 2000 SD 74, 611 NW2d 230, state otherwise, they are 3. SDCL 19-15-1 provides: If the witness is not testifying as an expert, his testimony in......