Gadson v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
 

----ooOoo----

Queenia R. Gadson,

Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board, and Davis Hospital and

Medical Center,

Respondents.

MEMORANDUM DECISION

(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20040112-CA
 

F I L E D

(September 10, 2004)
 

2004 UT App 299

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys: Queenia R. Gadson, Hampton, Virginia, Petitioner
Pro Se

Tiffany Vincent and Paul C. Burke, Salt Lake City, for Respondents

-----

Before Judges Billings, Orme, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

    Petitioner Queenia Gadson seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board (Board) denying her unemployment benefits.

    It is undisputed that Gadson quit her employment in order to accompany her spouse to Virginia, where he was transferred by reason of his position with the military. Gadson argues that continued employment in Utah, while her husband resides in Virginia, would cause mental, physical, and economic harm due to the splitting up of her family and the expense of maintaining two residences. Therefore, she claims she meets the requirement of good cause to receive benefits. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1) (2001). She argues that the only reasonable choice in her position was to quit her employment.

    The legislature, however, has determined that quitting in order to follow a spouse is considered voluntary and without good cause. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1)(d). By rule, quitting for such a purpose renders the employee ineligible under the standard of equity and good conscience. See Utah Admin. Code R994-405-104.

    The broad purpose behind the exclusion has been construed to be "to ameliorate the hardship of those who, through no fault of their own, find themselves to be unemployed." Chandler v. Department of Employment Sec., 678 P.2d 315, 316 (Utah 1980). Workers who choose to quit their employment in order to follow a spouse for personal reasons, no matter how compelling, have been determined not to fit into this broad purpose. See id. A good reason to quit a job is not the same as "good cause" as will entitle one to unemployment benefits.

    The decision of the Board is affirmed.

______________________________

Judith M. Billings,

Presiding Judge

______________________________

Gregory K. Orme, Judge

______________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge