Appeal of Eno (New Hampshire Department of Employment Security)
case brief summary
495 A.2d 1277 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
Plaintiff employee appealed from an
order of the appeal tribunal of the New Hampshire Department of
Employment Security, which sustained the department's denial of
unemployment benefits on the ground that the employee had failed to
expose herself to the labor market to the extent commensurate with
the economic conditions and the efforts of a reasonably prudent
person seeking work.
CASE FACTS
The employee was a student in college, but her schedule was otherwise flexible such that she was able to work as a clerical employee for the telephone company. She was laid off from the company and applied for unemployment compensation benefits under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 282-A. The employee received a pamphlet from the department in which it stated that she had to seek work as a condition of eligibility for benefits. A certifying officer determined that the employee was ineligible for benefits because she was a student in college, so she was not available for work on all shifts and hours for which there was a market for her services.
DISCUSSION
OUTCOME
The court reversed and remanded the order of the tribunal, which sustained the department's denial of unemployment benefits on the ground that the employee had failed to expose herself to the labor market to the extent commensurate with the economic conditions and the efforts of a reasonably prudent person seeking work.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
495 A.2d 1277 (1985)
CASE SYNOPSIS
CASE FACTS
The employee was a student in college, but her schedule was otherwise flexible such that she was able to work as a clerical employee for the telephone company. She was laid off from the company and applied for unemployment compensation benefits under N.H. Rev. Stat. Ann. ch. 282-A. The employee received a pamphlet from the department in which it stated that she had to seek work as a condition of eligibility for benefits. A certifying officer determined that the employee was ineligible for benefits because she was a student in college, so she was not available for work on all shifts and hours for which there was a market for her services.
DISCUSSION
- The tribunal affirmed the disqualification because she did not actively seek employment.
- The court determined that the department led the employee to believe that she did not have to do more than she had done to establish her eligibility.
- The court explained that the employee acted accordingly by answering want ads by telephone calls and by sending out her resume.
- The court concluded that the tribunal's denial of benefits for failing to do more was fundamentally unfair and amounted to a denial of due process.
OUTCOME
The court reversed and remanded the order of the tribunal, which sustained the department's denial of unemployment benefits on the ground that the employee had failed to expose herself to the labor market to the extent commensurate with the economic conditions and the efforts of a reasonably prudent person seeking work.
Recommended Supplements for Administrative Law Examples & Explanations: Administrative Law, Fourth Edition
Administrative Law and Process: In a Nutshell (Nutshell Series)
No comments:
Post a Comment