(6) Within this context, good cause means such cause as would justify the voluntary quitting of the class of the employed and joining the ranks of the unemployed — cause which would reasonably motivate the average, reasonable, able-bodied and qualified employee in a similar situation to forfeit his or her employment mindful of its pecuniary rewards in order to enter the less fortunate ranks of the compensated unemployed. ( McCrocklin v. Employment Development Dept. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1071-1072 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 156]; Rabago v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., supra, at p. 208; Zorrero v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1975) 47 Cal.App.3d 434, 439 [ 120 Cal.Rptr. 855].) "The policy of the code is to provide benefits to `persons unemployed through no fault of their own.
(2b) On the undisputed facts presented, the court below concluded that incompetency was not a basis for the reassignment. (4) We may disregard the trial court's conclusion only if the facts require us to do so. ( McCrocklin v. Employment Development Dept. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1074 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 156].) (2c) Here, the facts support the trial court's conclusion.
In another unemployment benefits case, the Second District Court of Appeal determined "`[g]ood cause' means a legally sufficient ground or reason for a certain action." ( McCrocklin v. Employment Development Dept. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1067, 1071 [ 205 Cal.Rptr. 156].) In R.J. Cardinal Co. v. Ritchie (1963) 218 Cal.App.2d 124 [ 32 Cal.Rptr. 545], the First District Court of Appeal stated that the "nucleus" of the concept of "good cause" involved the essential ingredients of reasonable grounds and good faith.
While there is no Nevada law supporting this, Glaser submits caselaw from other states that have found either a reasonable fear of harm to one's health or safety, or a reasonable fear of legal liability was good cause to voluntarily resign.See McCrocklin v. Employment Development Dept., 205 Cal.Rptr. 156, 159–60 (Ct.App.1984) ; Robinson v. Employment Sec. Dept., 930 P.2d 926, 928 (Wash.Ct.App.1996) (superseded by statute on another point of law as set forth in Wash. Rev.Code § 34.05.570(3) ); Tarr v. Florida Unemployment Appeals Com'n, 651 So.2d 1246, 1247 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App.1995).
It was not so onerous that it would reasonably motivate the average worker to give up his or her job. This case is not similar to McCrocklin v. Employment Development Dept. (1984) 156 Cal.App.3d 1067, where the reviewing court found good cause to leave employment from the facts that the claimant employee was forced to work in an inadequately ventilated space filled with tobacco smoke, he had a reasonable fear of the harmful effects of second hand smoke, and one of his co-employees smoked a brand of cigarettes that made the claimant’s throat raw and his eyes water. DISPOSITION