Stella v. Downyflake Restaurant

• Decision Date: 06 March 1940
• Citation: 11 A.2d 848,126 Conn. 441
• Court: Connecticut Supreme Court
• Parties: STELLA v. DOWNYFLAKE RESTAURANT et al.

11 A.2d 848

126 Conn. 441

STELLA v. DOWNYFLAKE RESTAURANT et al.

Supreme Court of Errors of Connecticut.

March 6, 1940

Appeal from Superior Court, Hartford County; John R. Booth, Judge.

Proceeding by Glenna Stella against the Downyflake Restaurant and the administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act to recover unemployment benefits. From a judgment of the superior court dismissing the administrator's appeal from a decision of the unemployment commissioner for the first district adjudging plaintiff entitled to benefits, the administrator appeals.

No error.

Harry Silverstone, Asst. Atty. Gen., and Francis A Pallotti, Atty. Gen., for appellant.

No appearance for other parties.

Argued before MALTBIE, C.J., and HINMAN, AVERY, BROWN, and JENNINGS JJ.

HINMAN, Judge.

The claim procedure under the state Unemployment Act, General Statutes, 1939 Sup., Chapter 280a, is prescribed by § 1341e. Claims for benefits are required (a) to be made at the public employment bureau most easily accessible. (b) An examiner designated by the administrator, § 1340e (a), is required to examine the claim and, on the basis of the facts found by him, determine whether the claim is valid. From his decision appeal may be taken as therein provided. (c) On this appeal the claim is heard, de novo, by one of the commissioners appointed under § 1340e (b). Benefit eligibility conditions are prescribed by § 1339e. The qualifications (a) include that an unemployed individual (1) shall be found to have made claim for benefits and ‘ registered for work’ at the public employment bureau or other agency designated by the administrator and (2) that ‘ he is physically and mentally able to work and is available for work.’ The disqualifications (b) include cases in which the administrator finds the claimant ‘ has failed without sufficient cause either to apply for available, suitable work when directed so to do by the public employment bureau or the administrator, or to accept suitable work when offered him by [such] bureau or by an employer.’ It is further provided that in determining whether or not any work is suitable to an individual the administrator may consider (inter alia) ‘ the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training and experience.’

Glenna Stella, hereinafter called the plaintiff, obtained employment with the named defendant in July, 1937, working at a soda fountain in its restaurant. In March, 1939, she terminated her employment to get married and did so in May. On September 20, 1939, she made claim for unemployment benefits but the examiner denied it on the ground that she was not ‘ available for work’ as required by § 1339e, supra. She appealed and, after hearing, the commissioner for the first district reversed the examiner's decision. From this the administrator appealed to the Superior Court, which dismissed the appeal to it. The issue upon all the appeals, including that to this court, is whether, upon the facts, the plaintiff is ‘ available for work’ within the meaning of § 1339e(a)(2).

The commissioner found that during the plaintiff's last four months of employment she worked as a waitress in the defendant's establishment because she felt that if she did not she would be discharged. Recourse to her original registration card shows a notation ‘ does not like waiting work’ and the commissioner's finding states that ‘ she does not care to accept a job as a waitress' because she feels that her high school education, which included commercial subjects, fits her for other...