OLYMPIA — The state Supreme Court has overturned legislative attempts to require people who voluntarily quit their jobs to prove that good cause existed under strict criteria in order for them to receive unemployment benefits.
In an unanimous ruling today, the high court found that state law on the issue is ambiguous and that the law’s 11 listed “good causes” under which an employee may leave should not be considered exhaustive.
“Viewed historically, and given how easy it would have been for the Legislature to say ‘good cause means,’ we are persuaded the Legislature did not intend to create an exclusive list of good cause reasons to voluntarily quit,” Justice Tom Chambers wrote for the court.
The court considered the cases of Kusum Batey and Sara Spain, who left their jobs because they found their employers “unbearable” and abusive.
They both sought unemployment and were denied, because the Employment Security Department said it didn’t have authority to give them benefits since they voluntarily left for reasons not listed under the state statute. Those “good cause” reasons include such things as a 25 percent or more reduction in pay, a 25 percent or more reduction in hours, and an unsafe workplace.
During a special session in 2003, lawmakers passed a sweeping unemployment insurance reform measure. Lawmakers added six more “good cause” reasons to the statute’s original four, but removed discretionary review by the Employment Security Department. An 11th cause was added by the Legislature this year.
The statute says that employees “shall be disqualified” if they “(leave) work voluntarily without good cause” and are “not disqualified” if they leave work for the specified reasons.
“That can be read very naturally to mean either that only those listed reasons are sufficient or that a worker is disqualified if she left her work voluntarily without good cause and is not disqualified if she left for certain statutory reasons,” the court wrote.
Spain alleged she suffered daily verbal abuse at her job with a Thurston County roofing company and quit in 2004. Batey left her as job an advocate for the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women in 2005 after sharply disagreeing with management on how their clients should be treated, among other things, according to court records.
Marc Lampson, the attorney who argued Spain’s appeal case, and director of the Seattle-based Unemployment Law Project, said that situations like his client’s need to be determined on a case-by-case basis.
“If you’re working for an abusive employer, what do you do? Do you just have to hang in there or do you say that I’m leaving?” he asked. “That surely seems to be a good reason to leave one’s job and qualify for unemployment benefits.”
The high court reversed the appellate court ruling in Spain’s case, and affirmed another appellate court’s ruling that had found in favor of Batey. It also awarded them attorney’s fees. Both cases are now back to the Employment Security Department to determine if the women had good cause to leave their jobs based on the individual facts of their cases, not the statutory list of “good cause” reasons.
Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for the Employment Security Department, said the agency was still reading through the ruling and could not yet comment.
The state attorney general’s office, which was representing the Employment Security Department in the cases, was still reviewing the ruling and hadn’t yet decided whether to ask the court to reconsider, said spokesman Dan Sytman.
Talk to us
> Give us your news tips.
> Send us a letter to the editor.
> More Herald contact information.
