Shorey v. Department of Employment Security

Supreme Court of Vermont

Shorey v. Department of Employment Security

377 A.2d 1389, 135 Vt. 414, 1977 Vt. LEXIS 642

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedSeptember 12, 1977

Docket298-76

StatusPublished

Cited by9 cases

This text of 377 A.2d 1389 (Shorey 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

Shorey v. Department of Employment Security, 377 A.2d 1389, 135 Vt. 414, 1977 Vt. LEXIS 642 (Vt. 1977).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was denied unemployment compensation on the ground that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. The facts concededly establish that the employer expressly indicated that the plaintiff would get a pay raise. After several months passed from the first raise request, punctuated by various temporizing promises, as well as a firm statement of intent to give a raise from the employer, the plaintiff was told that he would not get any increase. He thereupon quit.

The department analogized this case to a situation where there was an expectation of a pay raise, rather than a promise or contractual obligation. See DeSantis v. Board of Review, 149 N.J. Super 35, 372 A.2d 1362, 1364 (1977). The findings of fact clearly place the expected raise into the class of an employer’s promise. The department’s claim of condonation because the plaintiff worked at the lower wage for a period of time awaiting fulfillment of the promise cannot stand because the employer induced the expectation that led the plaintiff to continue his service.

Since the facts acknowledged to be applicable by the department compromise the conclusion reached by the board in this case, the judgment must be overturned.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for computation of benefits.

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

Per Curiam.

The plaintiff was denied unemployment compensation on the ground that he left his employment voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer. The facts concededly establish that the employer expressly indicated that the plaintiff would get a pay raise. After several months passed from the first raise request, punctuated by various temporizing promises, as well as a firm statement of intent to give a raise from the employer, the plaintiff was told that he would not get any increase. He thereupon quit.

The department analogized this case to a situation where there was an expectation of a pay raise, rather than a promise or contractual obligation. See DeSantis v. Board of Review, 149 N.J. Super 35, 372 A.2d 1362, 1364 (1977). The findings of fact clearly place the expected raise into the class of an employer’s promise. The department’s claim of condonation because the plaintiff worked at the lower wage for a period of time awaiting fulfillment of the promise cannot stand because the employer induced the expectation that led the plaintiff to continue his service.

Since the facts acknowledged to be applicable by the department compromise the conclusion reached by the board in this case, the judgment must be overturned.

Judgment reversed and cause remanded for computation of benefits.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

377 A.2d 1389, 135 Vt. 414, 1977 Vt. LEXIS 642, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/shorey-v-department-of-employment-security-vt-1977.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack