{ "id": 8524329, "name": "ROCHELLE L. EASON, Claimant-Appellant v. GOULD, INCORPORATED and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents-Appellees", "name_abbreviation": "Eason v. Gould, Inc.", "decision_date": "1984-02-07", "docket_number": "No. 8310SC115", "first_page": "260", "last_page": "264", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "66 N.C. App. 260" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.", "id": 14983, "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 5, "name_long": "North Carolina", "name": "N.C." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "100 Idaho 926", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Idaho", "case_ids": [ 4448157 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "notified of termination on 18 March, effective date 1 April, left 18 March" }, { "parenthetical": "notified of termination on 18 March, effective date 1 April, left 18 March" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/idaho/100/0926-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 S.E. 2d 457", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "306 N.C. 737", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8573757 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/306/0737-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 S.E. 2d 100", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "56 N.C. App. 380", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8521206 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/56/0380-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-2", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "341 N.Y.S. 2d 239", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.Y.S.2d", "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "employee left two weeks before effective date, no benefits awarded" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "41 A.D. 2d 791", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "A.D.2d", "case_ids": [ 5607985 ], "year": 1973, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "employee left two weeks before effective date, no benefits awarded" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ad2d/41/0791-01" ] }, { "cite": "122 Ariz. 290", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ariz.", "case_ids": [ 726720 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "claimant told she would be terminated on 11 May, left on 6 May. Court held employee who leaves before effective date of termination must show she would suffer substantial detriment by staying, in order to collect" }, { "parenthetical": "claimant told she would be terminated on 11 May, left on 6 May. Court held employee who leaves before effective date of termination must show she would suffer substantial detriment by staying, in order to collect" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ariz/122/0290-01" ] }, { "cite": "3 A. 2d 211", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "A.2d", "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "job layoff effective 24 December, employee left on 20 December" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "133 Pa. Super. 518", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Pa. Super.", "case_ids": [ 1013131 ], "year": 1938, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "job layoff effective 24 December, employee left on 20 December" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/pa-super/133/0518-01" ] }, { "cite": "340 So. 2d 1229", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "So. 2d", "case_ids": [ 9690827 ], "year": 1976, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "employee left two weeks before firing, on same day as notified" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/so2d/340/1229-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 S.E. 2d 590", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "employee told on Monday she would be terminated as of Friday, left on Tuesday" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "160 Ga. App. 549", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ga. App.", "case_ids": [ 583114 ], "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "employee told on Monday she would be terminated as of Friday, left on Tuesday" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ga-app/160/0549-01" ] }, { "cite": "161 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "273 N.C. 629", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8575910 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/273/0629-01" ] }, { "cite": "289 S.E. 2d 357", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "305 N.C. 373", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C.", "case_ids": [ 8569932 ], "year": 1982, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc/305/0373-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 S.E. 2d 854", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "good cause where employee resigned rather than carry out unethical order of employer" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 N.C. App. 163", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8548628 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "good cause where employee resigned rather than carry out unethical order of employer" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/47/0163-01" ] }, { "cite": "267 S.E. 2d 397", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "good cause where employees left due to racial discrimination against them by employer" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "47 N.C. App. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8550160 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "good cause where employees left due to racial discrimination against them by employer" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/47/0468-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 800", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 562", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527252 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0562-01" ] }, { "cite": "251 S.E. 2d 728", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "termination of research grant not a voluntary quit" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "39 N.C. App. 648", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554085 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "termination of research grant not a voluntary quit" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/39/0648-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 4", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "not voluntary termination where employer told employees they could resign or be fired" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 723", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554939 ], "year": 1980, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "not voluntary termination where employer told employees they could resign or be fired" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0723-01" ] }, { "cite": "307 S.E. 2d 774", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "64 N.C. App. 567", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8527262 ], "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/64/0567-01" ] }, { "cite": "309 S.E. 2d 733", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "not voluntary termination where employee leaves job for health reasons" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "65 N.C. App. 492", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8524812 ], "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "not voluntary termination where employee leaves job for health reasons" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/65/0492-01" ] }, { "cite": "263 S.E. 2d 1", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.E.2d", "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "44 N.C. App. 718", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "N.C. App.", "case_ids": [ 8554919 ], "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/nc-app/44/0718-01" ] }, { "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.", "weight": 8, "year": 1981, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(1)" }, { "page": "(1)" }, { "page": "(1)" }, { "page": "(2)", "parenthetical": "discharge for misconduct" }, { "page": "(3)", "parenthetical": "disqualification for failure to seek or accept suitable work" }, { "page": "(1)" }, { "page": "(1)" }, { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 523, "char_count": 9320, "ocr_confidence": 0.774, "pagerank": { "raw": 3.93627111496662e-07, "percentile": 0.9032347059616217 }, "sha256": "e88b7a060ee3ba27e82f486e5707f8ae514c2655f391049d0b439051ffa880d0", "simhash": "1:69b53452f8ba6618", "word_count": 1533 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:15:19.573584+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Judges WEBB and WhiCHARD concur." ], "parties": [ "ROCHELLE L. EASON, Claimant-Appellant v. GOULD, INCORPORATED and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents-Appellees" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nClaimant contends that the trial judge erred in concluding that claimant left her job voluntarily without good cause attributable to her employer, and was therefore ineligible for unemployment benefits under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981).\nFindings of fact made by the Employment Security Commission are binding on appeal where there is any competent evidence to support the findings. In re Cantrell, 44 N.C. App. 718, 263 S.E. 2d 1 (1980). Conclusions of law, however, may be fully reviewed on appeal.\nAn analysis of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981) shows that an applicant will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if two things are shown: (1) claimant left work voluntarily (2) without good cause attributable to the employer. If a claimant either left work involuntarily or with good cause attributable to the employer, then the claimant may collect benefits, provided of course, the other requirements of the Employment Security Act are met. Our courts have examined the meaning of the term \u201cvoluntary\u201d job termination in several recent cases. See, e.g., Milliken and Co. v. Griffin, 65 N.C. App. 492, 309 S.E. 2d 733 (1983) (not voluntary termination where employee leaves job for health reasons); Sellers v. National Spinning Co., Inc., 64 N.C. App. 567, 307 S.E. 2d 774 (1983); In re Werner, 44 N.C. App. 723, 263 S.E. 2d 4 (1980) (not voluntary termination where employer told employees they could resign or be fired); and In re Scaringelli 39 N.C. App. 648, 251 S.E. 2d 728 (1979) (termination of research grant not a voluntary quit). These cases teach that an employee has not left his job voluntarily when events beyond the employee\u2019s control or the wishes of the employer cause the termination.\nOur courts have also construed the meaning of the term \u201cgood cause attributable to the employer\u201d for purposes of the Employment Security Act. See, e.g., Tastee Freez Cafeteria v. Watson, 64 N.C. App. 562, 307 S.E. 2d 800 (1983) and In re Bolden, 47 N.C. App. 468, 267 S.E. 2d 397 (1980) (good cause where employees left due to racial discrimination against them by employer); In re Clark, 47 N.C. App. 163, 266 S.E. 2d 854 (1980) (good cause where employee resigned rather than carry out unethical order of employer). It is clear from these cases that a good cause within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981) includes a reaction to requests or policies of the employer which would be considered valid by \u201creasonable minds.\u201d Compare \u201cgood cause\u201d definition under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(2) (1981) (discharge for misconduct); Intercraft Industries Corp. v. Morrison, 305 N.C. 373, 289 S.E. 2d 357 (1982), and \u201cgood cause\u201d under N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(3) (1981) (disqualification for failure to seek or accept suitable work); In re Watson, 273 N.C. 629, 161 S.E. 2d 1 (1968).\nTurning now to an analysis of the case before us, we first consider whether claimant left her job voluntarily within the meaning of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981). It is undisputed that claimant was told by her employer that she would be laid off beginning 19 March 1982, and that as of that date at least, claimant would be forced out of work due to an action by the employer. There is no indication that claimant was terminated for misconduct. The courts of a number of other states have held that an employee who leaves work before the effective date of an impending layoff or termination has not quit voluntarily and is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. See, e.g., Elizabeth V. Caldwell, 160 Ga. App. 549, 287 S.E. 2d 590 (1981) (employee told on Monday she would be terminated as of Friday, left on Tuesday); McCammon v. Yellowstone Co., Inc., 100 Idaho 926, 607 P. 2d 434 (1980) (notified of termination on 18 March, effective date 1 April, left 18 March); Johnston v. Florida Department of Commerce, 340 So. 2d 1229 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. 1976) (employee left two weeks before firing, on same day as notified); Department of Labor & Industry v. Unemployment Comp. Board of Review, 133 Pa. Super. 518, 3 A. 2d 211 (1938) (job layoff effective 24 December, employee left on 20 December). But see Ferguson v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Security, 122 Ariz. 290, 594 P. 2d 544 (1979) (claimant told she would be terminated on 11 May, left on 6 May. Court held employee who leaves before effective date of termination must show she would suffer substantial detriment by staying, in order to collect); and Berkowitz v. Levine, 41 A.D. 2d 791, 341 N.Y.S. 2d 239 (1973) (employee left two weeks before effective date, no benefits awarded).\nAppellees contend, however, that under our statute the crucial time for considering whether a claimant left his job voluntarily is the date of application for unemployment benefits, rather than the last day worked or the effective date of the termination. Appellees point to N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981) which disqualifies claimants who are \u201c. . . at the time such claim is filed, unemployed because [they] . . . left work voluntarily without good cause attributable to the employer.\u201d Because claimant filed for benefits on 10 March 1982, nine days before the effective date of her layoff, appellees contend that she was voluntarily unemployed at the time of her application and was thus ineligible to receive any benefits. Appellees\u2019 argument rests upon an overly strict interpretation of the statute which we are unwilling to adopt.\nWhile the statutory language does focus upon the time of the application for benefits, there is no provision preventing consideration of a claimant\u2019s application after the effective date of a termination. Appellees\u2019 interpretation is supported neither by common sense, nor the spirit of the Employment Security Act. The act was designed to provide protection against \u201ceconomic insecurity due to unemployment,\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-2 (1981), and should be liberally construed in favor of applicants. In re Scaringelli, In re Watson, supra.\nAppellees cite In re Cianfarra, 56 N.C. App. 380, 289 S.E. 2d 100 (1982), vacated, 306 N.C. 737, 295 S.E. 2d 457 (1983) in support of their argument that claimant is ineligible to receive benefits. The dispositive issue addressed by our Supreme Court in Cian- farra was defendant\u2019s misconduct. Because the opinion of this court in Cianfarra was vacated by our Supreme Court, it may not be relied upon in this case.\nApplying the two-pronged test of N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(1) (1981) to the case before us, we hold that while claimant was voluntarily unemployed without good cause attributable to the employer between 10 March 1982, the date of her application, and 19 March 1982, her lay-off date, nevertheless, upon her application disputed in this case, claimant may be considered for benefits accruing after 19 March 1982.\nThis cause is remanded to the Superior Court of Wake County for remand to the Employment Security Commission for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.\nAffirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded.\nJudges WEBB and WhiCHARD concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "WELLS, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "East Central Community Legal Services, by Victor J. Boone, for claimant.", "Donald R. Teeter for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "ROCHELLE L. EASON, Claimant-Appellant v. GOULD, INCORPORATED and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents-Appellees\nNo. 8310SC115\n(Filed 7 February 1984)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108\u2014 unemployment compensation \u2014 leaving job before announced lay-off\nWhere claimant left work on 4 March two weeks before her announced lay-off on 19 March and filed for unemployment benefits on 10 March, claimant was voluntarily unemployed without good cause attributable to her employer between the time of her application on 10 March and her lay-off date of 19 March, but claimant was unemployed with good cause attributable to her employer after the lay-off date of 19 March and thus would be eligible for unemployment benefits after that date. G.S. 96-14(1).\nAPPEAL by claimant from Bailey, Judge. Judgment entered 22 September 1982 in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 11 January 1984.\nClaimant, Rochelle Lynn Eason, a former assembly-line worker at Gould, Inc. of Wilmington, was denied unemployment benefits when she left work in March 1982, two weeks before an announced lay-off.\nThe facts, which are essentially undisputed by the parties, are as follows. Ms. Eason learned from fellow employees on 4 March 1982 that she would be laid off on 19 March 1982 due to a \u201cslow down\u201d at the plant where she worked. Claimant did not return to work after she learned of the impending layoff, and filed for unemployment benefits on 10 March 1982. Claimant indicated she decided not to return to work because she was unable to support herself without a steady income and therefore she was forced to live with her parents, who were moving to Raleigh.\nClaimant\u2019s request for unemployment benefits was denied by Appeals Referee W. R. Perry, Jr., on the ground that \u201c. . . claimant left the job voluntarily and . . . while claimant may have had a good personal reason for leaving, the leaving was without good cause attributable to the employer.\u201d Claimant\u2019s later appeals to Deputy Commissioner V. Henry Gransee, Jr., and to Wake County Superior Court were also unsuccessful. From the denial of benefits, claimant appealed.\nEast Central Community Legal Services, by Victor J. Boone, for claimant.\nDonald R. Teeter for Employment Security Commission of North Carolina." }, "file_name": "0260-01", "first_page_order": 292, "last_page_order": 296 }