Vennell v. Department of Employment Security

Supreme Court of Vermont

Vennell v. Department of Employment Security

449 A.2d 899, 141 Vt. 282, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 528

CourtSupreme Court of Vermont

DecidedJune 8, 1982

DocketNo. 416-81

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 449 A.2d 899 (Vennell 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

Vennell v. Department of Employment Security, 449 A.2d 899, 141 Vt. 282, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 528 (Vt. 1982).

Pincite

Opinion

Barney, C.J.

This is an appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a) (2) (A), leaving the last employing unit voluntarily without good cause [283]*283attributable to that employing unit. We affirm the decision of the Employment Security Board.

The claimant was a science teacher at Orford (New Hampshire) High School.¹ During the 1980-81 school year he was convicted of possession of marijuana. He was suspended from his teaching duties and encouraged by the school superintendent to resign, which he did in order to protect his personnel record from an entry of “dismissal for a morals charge” which would have been recorded if dismissal eventually occurred. The claimant chose to resign after both the superintendent and his union representative advised him that such a dismissal would be a near certain result of continued disciplinary proceedings.

The issue on appeal is whether a resignation encouraged by an employer under these circumstances amounts to a leaving that is voluntary and without good cause attributable to the employer.

Although unemployment compensation laws are remedial in nature, and thus are to be liberally construed, the purposes underlying them are to remove economic disabilities resulting from involuntary unemployment, and to assist workers who become jobless through no fault of their own. Davis v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 269, 273, 438 A.2d 375, 378 (1981).

It cannot be said of this claimant that he became unemployed through no fault of his own. While we recognize that, given certain facts, a resignation under a quit-or-be-fired offer may be involuntary, Thomas v. District Court of Columbia Department of Labor, 409 A.2d 164 (D.C. 1979), this is not such a case. The claimant resigned because he had been convicted of possession of marijuana. This was solely attributable to his own conduct, and compensation for his unemployment is not within the declared public policy of the state. Cf. In re Vinson, 42 N.C. Ct. App. 28, 31, 255 S.E.2d 644, 646 (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

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

Barney, C.J.

This is an appeal from a denial of unemployment benefits pursuant to 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a) (2) (A), leaving the last employing unit voluntarily without good cause [283]*283attributable to that employing unit. We affirm the decision of the Employment Security Board.

The claimant was a science teacher at Orford (New Hampshire) High School.¹ During the 1980-81 school year he was convicted of possession of marijuana. He was suspended from his teaching duties and encouraged by the school superintendent to resign, which he did in order to protect his personnel record from an entry of “dismissal for a morals charge” which would have been recorded if dismissal eventually occurred. The claimant chose to resign after both the superintendent and his union representative advised him that such a dismissal would be a near certain result of continued disciplinary proceedings.

The issue on appeal is whether a resignation encouraged by an employer under these circumstances amounts to a leaving that is voluntary and without good cause attributable to the employer.

Although unemployment compensation laws are remedial in nature, and thus are to be liberally construed, the purposes underlying them are to remove economic disabilities resulting from involuntary unemployment, and to assist workers who become jobless through no fault of their own. Davis v. Department of Employment Security, 140 Vt. 269, 273, 438 A.2d 375, 378 (1981).

It cannot be said of this claimant that he became unemployed through no fault of his own. While we recognize that, given certain facts, a resignation under a quit-or-be-fired offer may be involuntary, Thomas v. District Court of Columbia Department of Labor, 409 A.2d 164 (D.C. 1979), this is not such a case. The claimant resigned because he had been convicted of possession of marijuana. This was solely attributable to his own conduct, and compensation for his unemployment is not within the declared public policy of the state. Cf. In re Vinson, 42 N.C. Ct. App. 28, 31, 255 S.E.2d 644, 646 (1979).

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

449 A.2d 899, 141 Vt. 282, 1982 Vt. LEXIS 528, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/vennell-v-department-of-employment-security-vt-1982.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack