Lassiter v. Department of Employment Security

Utah Supreme Court

Lassiter v. Department of Employment Security

689 P.2d 1337, 1984 Utah LEXIS 925

CourtUtah Supreme Court

DecidedSeptember 19, 1984

DocketNo. 19435

StatusPublished

This text of 689 P.2d 1337 (Lassiter v. Department of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Utah Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Lassiter v. Department of Employment Security, 689 P.2d 1337, 1984 Utah LEXIS 925 (Utah 1984).

Pincite

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

This is a review of the denial of unemployment benefits under U.C.A., 1958, § 35-4-5(a).

The claimant said she had left her Utah bank job with “good cause” to obtain other employment in Nevada because she only transferred to another branch of the bank. See Department’s General Rules of Adjudication (A71-07-2) § 365.05. However, she had no definite offer of employment in Nevada nor any starting date at a new job. After a hearing, the appeal referee found that she had not been transferred within the meaning of the Department’s rules and that she had quit to follow her husband, who had been transferred to Nevada. The evidence supports that determination.

The last sentence of section 35-4-5(a) of the Code, added in 1982, provides that leaving work to accompany one’s spouse does not constitute “good cause” for purposes of establishing compensability under the Act. We have upheld that enactment. Chandler v. Department of Employment Security, Utah, 678 P.2d 315 (1984). And we find the Department’s rules distinguishing between a transfer and quitting, as applied to the facts of this case, a reasonable interpretation and implementation of the statute. Therefore, the factual findings of the referee require an affirmance of the denial of benefits.

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

PER CURIAM:

This is a review of the denial of unemployment benefits under U.C.A., 1958, § 35-4-5(a).

The claimant said she had left her Utah bank job with “good cause” to obtain other employment in Nevada because she only transferred to another branch of the bank. See Department’s General Rules of Adjudication (A71-07-2) § 365.05. However, she had no definite offer of employment in Nevada nor any starting date at a new job. After a hearing, the appeal referee found that she had not been transferred within the meaning of the Department’s rules and that she had quit to follow her husband, who had been transferred to Nevada. The evidence supports that determination.

The last sentence of section 35-4-5(a) of the Code, added in 1982, provides that leaving work to accompany one’s spouse does not constitute “good cause” for purposes of establishing compensability under the Act. We have upheld that enactment. Chandler v. Department of Employment Security, Utah, 678 P.2d 315 (1984). And we find the Department’s rules distinguishing between a transfer and quitting, as applied to the facts of this case, a reasonable interpretation and implementation of the statute. Therefore, the factual findings of the referee require an affirmance of the denial of benefits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

689 P.2d 1337, 1984 Utah LEXIS 925, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/lassiter-v-department-of-employment-security-utah-1984.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack