Wallace v. Department of Employment Sec., 81-76

• Decision Date: 05 October 1976
• Docket Number: No. 81-76,81-76
• Court: Vermont Supreme Court
• Parties: Nancy WALLACE v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY.

Page 517

365 A.2d 517

134 Vt. 513

Nancy WALLACE v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY.

No. 81-76.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

Oct. 5, 1976.

Motion for Reargument Denied Oct. 22, 1976.

Kenneth Mark Appel, Vermont Legal Aid, Inc., St. Johnsbury, for plaintiff.

Raymond S. Fitzpatrick, Barre, for defendant.

Before BARNEY, C. J., and SMITH, DALEY, LARROW and BILLINGS, JJ.

DALEY, Justice.

The appellant, a claimant for unemployment benefits, challenges the decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board affirming the denial of her claim for compensation by an appeals referee. The undisputed facts are that the claimant was trained and certified as a teacher and that teaching is her usual occupation. In July, 1975, she was forced to leave her position as a teacher of remedial reading in St. Johnsbury because of inadequate funding. She thereafter applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The parties agree that she was entitled to receive these benefits; however, because of administrative problems, the benefit payments were substantially delayed. During the ensuing summer months she sought employment as a teacher but was unable to secure such a position. In September, 1975, the claimant accepted employment at the University of Vermont as a clerk/typist. The Department of Employment Security concedes that this clerical position was unsuitable for the claimant and that she could have refused such employment without adversely affecting her claim for benefits. The claimant remained at this position for ten days, at which time she voluntarily left because of her inability to adjust to this form of clerical employment. Her subsequent claim for unemployment benefits was denied by the appeals referee and the Board on the ground that she had voluntarily left the clerical position without good cause attributable to the employer. 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(2)(A). The sole issue before this Court is whether the claimant, by accepting employment in a position which was unsuitable and remaining at that job for the days, waived her statutory right to receive unemployment benefits.

This Court has repeatedly recognized that the Unemployment Compensation Act, 21 V.S.A. § 1301 et seq., was enacted as remedial legislation and that a claimant should not be excluded from the provisions of the Act unless such an exclusion is clearly intended by law. Lolan v. Davidson, 134 Vt. 295, 357 A.2d 129, 131 (1976); In re Potvin, 132 Vt. 14, 17, 313 A.2d 25 (1973); In re Moore, 128 Vt. 581, 586, 269 A.2d 853 (1970). We have noted that a person who involuntarily joins the ranks of the unemployed may face the harsh reality of having to 'lower his sight somewhat and accept work involving less competence and lower remuneration'. In re Potvin, supra, 132 Vt. at 19, 313 A.2d at 28. However, a claimant will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when he refuses to accept unsuitable employment. 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a) (3).

The Employment Security Board maintains that the claimant, by accepting unsuitable employment at a time when she was eligible for benefits, forfeited or waived those benefits. To subscribe to such a draconian interpretation of the...