Berger v. Nez Perce Sheriff

671 P.2d 468, 105 Idaho 555, 1983 Ida. LEXIS 515

• Court: Idaho Supreme Court
• Decided: October 20, 1983
• Docket: 14447
• Status: Published

Opinions

HUNTLEY, Justice.

Claimant appeals from an Industrial Commission order denying her application for unemployment benefits. The question presented is whether her voluntary resignation was for good cause. The facts are essentially undisputed.

Claimant, Susan Berger, was employed by the Nez Perce County Sheriff’s Office when she became engaged to a co-worker, Lyle Berger. About six months before their marriage they became aware that the sheriff interpreted the county’s nepotism policy to prohibit employment of a married couple by the department. Five days before their marriage the sheriff informed Susan that either she or Lyle would have to resign after their marriage. Both Susan and Lyle then resigned, reasoning that since both were equally well qualified and both shared a desire to make law enforcement a career, it would be unfair for either one to expect the other to resign alone. They elected to resign rather than await discharge because a discharge would negatively affect future employment possibilities. Lyle resigned on March 18,1981, and Susan resigned five days later. They then moved to the Spokane area to seek employment in law enforcement. Failing to find employment, they returned to the Lewiston area and Susan applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Claimant contends that her voluntary resignation was made necessary by her employer’s enforcement of the anti-nepotism policy, that the policy was wrongly enforced as against claimant and her husband, and that therefore her resignation was for “good cause.”¹

While this Court has established guidelines, as a matter of law, for determining whether a person’s reasons for quitting or refusing employment constitute “good cause” within the meaning of the statute,² the guidelines are necessarily general and a determination of good cause in a particular case depends primarily on the facts of that case. Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & Produce, 103 Idaho 821, 654 P.2d 914 (1982); Saulls v. Employment Security Agency, 85 Idaho 212, 377 P.2d 789 (1963). This Court will therefore review the Commission’s determination on the question of good cause and the legal standards applied, but with requisite deference being paid to factual findings which make up the basis for such determination. See, Ellis v. Northwest Fruit & Produce, supra.

In the present case the Commission determined that claimant did not have good cause to resign because at the time of her resignation her husband was no longer working for the sheriff’s office, and the requirements of the anti-nepotism policy, as erroneously interpreted by the sheriff, were nevertheless complied with. Claimant’s decision that both she and her husband would resign was not prompted in any way by her employer since he had advised that only one would have to leave. After her husband had already resigned, claimant’s resignation was unnecessary, except for her personal purpose of maintaining fairness between herself and her husband. We cannot say that the Commission erred in holding that such a reason did not constitute good cause. The order of the Industrial Commission is affirmed.

Costs to Respondents. No attorney fees allowed.

DONALDSON, C.J., and BAKES, J., concur.

1 . As shown in the record, the sheriffs interpretation of the anti-nepotism policy was incorrect. The policy was directed to favoritism in “appointment” or hiring, and would not apply in a situation such as here where present employees, unrelated when hired, become related thereafter.

2 . I.C. § 72-1366(e).