Esty v. Department of Employment Security

Supreme Court of Vermont

Esty v. Department of Employment Security

420 A.2d 114, 138 Vt. 552, 1980 Vt. LEXIS 1374

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 8, 1980

DocketNo. 205-79

StatusPublished

This text of 420 A.2d 114 (Esty v. Department of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Vermont primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Esty v. Department of Employment Security, 420 A.2d 114, 138 Vt. 552, 1980 Vt. LEXIS 1374 (Vt. 1980).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

From a denial of benefits by the Vermont Employment Security Board (Board), claimant appeals. We affirm.

The Board certified the following question for review:

Whether the conclusion of the Employment Security Board, that the claimant, who, after losing his means of transportation to work, terminated his employment, left the employ of his last employing unit voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employing unit, is correct as a matter of law.

The Board found that the claimant, a mason tender, needed transportation to get to his work. Although he owned two cars, neither was operable. He rode daily to and from the job site with a co-worker who had several other individuals riding with him. When the driver went on vacation the claimant was able to get a ride with his brother for only a few days. When that ride was no longer available, he left the job. The Board also found that there had never been an agreement between the claimant and his employer that the employer would provide transportation to the job site. The claimant disputes that finding but points to no evidence in the record to support his position.

Although the quitting might have been involuntary as to the employee, he failed to demonstrate that transportation was to be furnished by the employer. The employee’s termination of employment because of loss of transportation furnished by a co-employee, where the employer had not undertaken to provide transportation, was not for good cause attributable to the employer within the meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a) (2) (A). See Putnam v. Department of Employment Security, 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d 519 (1961).

Question answered in the affirmative.

Judgment affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

From a denial of benefits by the Vermont Employment Security Board (Board), claimant appeals. We affirm.

The Board certified the following question for review:

Whether the conclusion of the Employment Security Board, that the claimant, who, after losing his means of transportation to work, terminated his employment, left the employ of his last employing unit voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employing unit, is correct as a matter of law.

The Board found that the claimant, a mason tender, needed transportation to get to his work. Although he owned two cars, neither was operable. He rode daily to and from the job site with a co-worker who had several other individuals riding with him. When the driver went on vacation the claimant was able to get a ride with his brother for only a few days. When that ride was no longer available, he left the job. The Board also found that there had never been an agreement between the claimant and his employer that the employer would provide transportation to the job site. The claimant disputes that finding but points to no evidence in the record to support his position.

Although the quitting might have been involuntary as to the employee, he failed to demonstrate that transportation was to be furnished by the employer. The employee’s termination of employment because of loss of transportation furnished by a co-employee, where the employer had not undertaken to provide transportation, was not for good cause attributable to the employer within the meaning of 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a) (2) (A). See Putnam v. Department of Employment Security, 103 N.H. 495, 175 A.2d 519 (1961).

Question answered in the affirmative.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

420 A.2d 114, 138 Vt. 552, 1980 Vt. LEXIS 1374, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/esty-v-department-of-employment-security-vt-1980.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack