Newland v. Job Service North Dakota

26 Citing cases

  1. Tronnes v. Job Serv. N.D.

    813 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 2012)   Cited 1 times

    Hjelden, 1999 ND 234, ¶ 8, 603 N.W.2d 500. Good cause means “ ‘a reason for abandoning one's employment which would impel a reasonably prudent person to do so under the same or similar circumstances.’ ” Willits, 2011 ND 135, ¶ 7, 799 N.W.2d 374 (quoting Newland v. Job Serv. N.D., 460 N.W.2d 118, 123 (N.D.1990) (footnote omitted)). Attributable to employer means “ ‘produced, caused, created or as a result of actions by the employer.’ ”

  2. Johnson v. Job Service North Dakota

    590 N.W.2d 877 (N.D. 1999)   Cited 9 times
    Stating the “nature of the employment is a consideration when deciding whether an employee's conduct constitutes misconduct”

    This Court has discussed the dual objectives of unemployment compensation. Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118, 121 (N.D. 1990). The primary objective of N.D.C.C. § 52-01-05 is to "soften the harsh impact of involuntary unemployment."

  3. Carlson v. Job Service North Dakota

    548 N.W.2d 389 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 12 times
    In Carlson v. Job Service North Dakota, 548 N.W.2d 389, 393 (ND 1996), we described what constitutes quitting with good cause attributable to the employer under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02(1).

    Tehven v. Job Service North Dakota, 488 N.W.2d 48 (N.D. 1992). Unemployment compensation is available to a worker who is unemployed through no fault of her own. Chapter 52-06, N.D.C.C.; Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1990). However, under Section 52-06-02, N.D.C.C., a worker is disqualified from receiving benefits if she voluntarily quits employment without good cause attributable to her employer, and the employee has the burden of proving she quit her job for good cause.

  4. Esselman v. Job Service North Dakota

    548 N.W.2d 400 (N.D. 1996)   Cited 11 times
    In Esselman the district court upheld Job Service's denial of benefits to Esselman whereas the district court, a different judge sitting, reversed Job Service's denial of benefits to Carlson.

    Under N.D.C.C. Ch. 52-06, a worker who exhibits a genuine commitment to working and is unemployed through no fault of her own is entitled to receive unemployment compensation. N.D.C.C. §§ 52-01-05 and 52-06-01; Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118, 121 (N.D. 1990). Under N.D.C.C. § 52-06-02, however, a worker is disqualified from receiving benefits if she voluntarily quits employment without good cause attributable to the employer.

  5. Hulse v. Job Service North Dakota

    492 N.W.2d 604 (N.D. 1992)   Cited 8 times

    " Perske v. Job Service North Dakota, 336 N.W.2d 146, 148-49 (N.D. 1983) [quoting Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 296 N.W. 636 (1941)]. Subsection two, with its common law definition of misconduct, is, like each of the other benefit-disqualifying provisions of NDCC § 52-06-02, an exception to this state's remedial unemployment compensation laws. Cf. Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118, 121 (N.D. 1990). See also Dalton Brick Tile Co. v. Huiet, 102 Ga. App. 221, 115 S.E.2d 748, 750 (1960) ["[P]rovisions . . . providing for disqualification of benefits constitute a list of exceptions to the general grant of such benefits."]. Because benefit-disqualifying provisions are exceptions, courts generally construe them narrowly or strictly.

  6. Schaefer v. Job Service North Dakota

    463 N.W.2d 665 (N.D. 1990)   Cited 10 times

    It is the public policy of this State to soften the harsh impact of involuntary unemployment by providing unemployment insurance. Section 52-01-05, NDCC; see also Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118 (N.D. 1990). North Dakota unemployment compensation law is remedial legislation which should, therefore, be construed liberally in favor of the employee. Newland, 460 N.W.2d at 121.

  7. White v. Security Link

    658 A.2d 619 (Del. Super. Ct. 1994)   Cited 25 times
    Holding that the “reasonableness of the employee's efforts should be evaluated in light of the relevant circumstances....”

    Prickett v. Circuit Science, Inc., Minn.Ct.App., 499 N.W.2d 506, 507-08 (1993) (failure to report for new shift assignment because of inability to arrange for care of a dependent child does not constitute "misconduct" for purposes of unemployment compensation); Zukoski v. Director of Div. of Employment Sec., 390 Mass. 1009, 459 N.E.2d 467 (1984) (domestic obligations may constitute "urgent and compelling" reason making a resignation "involuntary" and thereby rendering claimant eligible for unemployment compensation benefits); Claim of McEvoy, 89 A.D.2d 1049, 456 N.Y.S.2d 110 (1982) (conflict with domestic obligations based upon a transfer and the possibility of a shift change constituted "compelling" reasons for claimant to quit and satisfied the statutory requirement that voluntary termination be for "good cause"). In Newland v. Job Service North Dakota, N.D., 460 N.W.2d 118 (1990), the Supreme Court of North Dakota held that an unemployment compensation claimant who resigned from her job in response to a change in working hours which conflicted with her parental obligations may have quit for "good cause attributable to the employer", a standard very similar to that found in 19 Del. C. § 3315(1). The Newland court stated that unemployment compensation law seeks to strike a balance between the rights of the unemployed worker who genuinely wants to work and "the protection of the former employer from quits that have nothing to do with the employer or the employment."

  8. Verizon Servs. Corp. v. Epling

    230 W. Va. 439 (W. Va. 2013)   Cited 3 times

    The phrase “attributable to the employer,” as used in various other state statutes, has been defined as “produced, caused, created or as a result of actions by the employer.” Newland v. Job Serv. N.D., 460 N.W.2d 118, 121 (N.D.1990). Thus, a statutory scheme utilizing that phrase is arguably less stringent than the “fault” standard utilized in West Virginia and consequently more favorable toward a finding of employee eligibility.

  9. Thompson v. Christiana Care Health System

    25 A.3d 778 (Del. 2011)   Cited 104 times
    Holding that notwithstanding Thompson's “frustrat [ion]” with the hospital's grievance process, she was not “absolve[d][of] her obligation to exhaust all reasonable alternatives.... A reasonably prudent employee desiring to maintain employment would have utilized the available procedures and protocols established by the employer ...”

    FN13. See Acro Tech., Inc. v. Admin'r., Unemployment Comp. Act, 25 Conn.App. 130, 593 A.2d 154, 157–58 (1991) (good cause is a reason which would impel the ordinary reasonable person to leave and which provide the individual with no reasonable alternative but to terminate his employment); Newland v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 460 N.W.2d 118, 122–123 (N.D.1990) (good cause is defined as a reason for abandoning one's employment which would impel a reasonably prudent person to do so under the same or similar circumstances); McPherson v. Emp't. Div., 285 Or. 541, 591 P.2d 1381, 1388 (1979) (good cause must be (a) objectively related to the employment and (b) such as would impel a reasonably prudent person to quit under similar circumstances); Green Tree Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 982 A.2d 573, 576–577 (Pa.Commw.2009) (good cause results from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner); Reetz v. Lutheran Health Sys., 611 N.W.2d 230, 234 (S.D.2000) (good cause exists after an employee demonstrates (1) he left work primarily because of a work-connected factor of such a compelling nature that a reasonably prudent person would have left his employment, and (2) he first exhausted all reasonab

  10. Willits v. Job Serv. North Dakota

    799 N.W.2d 374 (N.D. 2011)   Cited 3 times

    " 460 N.W.2d 118, 121-22 (N.D. 1990) (internal citations omitted); see also Johnson v. Job Serv. North Dakota, 1999 ND 42, ¶ 10, 590 N.W.2d 877. To be eligible for unemployment benefits, an employee "must have made a good faith effort to remain `attached to the labor market' but did not succeed through `no fault' of her own.