Galley v. DWS

IN THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS

----ooOoo----

Cheryl R. Galley,
Petitioner,

v.

Department of Workforce Services, Workforce Appeals Board,
Respondent.

MEMORANDUM DECISION
(Not For Official Publication)
 

Case No. 20030136-CA
 

F I L E D
(July 31, 2003)
 

2003 UT App 277

-----

Original Proceeding in this Court

Attorneys:
Cheryl R. Galley, Pinedale, Wyoming, Petitioner Pro Se
Lorin R. Blauer, Salt Lake City, for Respondent

-----

Before Judges Jackson, Greenwood, and Thorne.

PER CURIAM:

Petitioner Cheryl Galley seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board denying her unemployment benefits. This case is before the court on a sua sponte motion for summary disposition.

It is undisputed that Galley submitted a written letter of resignation informing her employer that she was moving to Wyoming to be with her husband and their son. Galley worked through May of 2002. She applied for unemployment benefits in October of that year after being unable to obtain employment. The Workforce Appeals Board determined that Galley was ineligible for benefits because she "left work voluntarily without good cause." Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1)(a) (2001).

Galley contends that she had "good cause" for leaving her employment to reunite her family for the benefit of her son. Alternatively, she contends she has "earned" the right to collect unemployment. Finally, she claims for the first time before this court that others who have relocated to join spouses have been awarded benefits. The latter claim was not raised before the agency and no evidence appears in the record in support of the claim. Accordingly, we do not consider it. See Brown & Root Indus. v. Industrial Comm'n, 947 P.2d 671, 677 (Utah 1997) ("We have consistently held that issues not raised in proceedings before administrative agencies are not subject to judicial review except in exceptional circumstances.").

Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1)(d) (2001) dictates the result in this case. The provision states:

Notwithstanding any other subsection of this section, a claimant who has left work voluntarily to accompany, follow, or join the claimant's spouse to or in a new locality does so without good cause for purposes of subsection (1).

Section 35A-4-405(1)(a) grants discretion to the agency in determining "good cause," and section 35A-4-405(1)(b) allows an exception to the good cause requirement where "equity and good conscience" support granting benefits. Nevertheless, section 35A-4-405(1)(d) excludes circumstances where a claimant has "left work voluntarily to accompany, follow, or join" a spouse in a new locality. The statute is a clear, express and straight-forward limit on the Board's discretion. Accordingly, the Board correctly concluded that it had "no authority to allow unemployment insurance benefits where the Legislature has specifically exempted coverage." There is no basis for a distinction in application of the statute if Galley's primary motivation was to benefit her son.

Galley contends that rule 994-405-104 of the Utah Code of Administration "is not the law," or misstates the law. However, it is unnecessary to consider this claim because the statutory language enacted by the Utah Legislature is dispositive.

Having a good reason to quit a job and having "good cause" to quit allowing entitlement to unemployment compensation are not the same thing. Unemployment benefits are not available to a worker because they are "earned" through past service or because he or she left work for an appropriate personal reason.

The decision of the Board is affirmed.

____________________________

Norman H. Jackson,

Presiding Judge

____________________________

Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge

____________________________

William A. Thorne Jr., Judge