{
  "id": 8520900,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: BRIDGET D. McNEIL, Petitioner v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "McNeil v. Employment Security Commission of North Carolina",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-01",
  "docket_number": "No. 8712SC841",
  "first_page": "142",
  "last_page": "144",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "89 N.C. App. 142"
    }
  ],
  "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": "91 S.E. 2d 241",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "244",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis in original"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "243 N.C. 509",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8625919
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1956,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "513"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/243/0509-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "210 S.E. 2d 193",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "195"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "286 N.C. 226",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8565019
      ],
      "year": 1974,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "229"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/286/0226-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 331,
    "char_count": 6801,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.851,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.770845263994211e-08,
      "percentile": 0.41398494661271756
    },
    "sha256": "4fe0d558dcc410799d7fbc67a85ceb2643472008b29b0cb8698d375dcb482c8e",
    "simhash": "1:07d3447dd631be66",
    "word_count": 1096
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:39:00.818604+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge HEDRICK and Judge BECTON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: BRIDGET D. McNEIL, Petitioner v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "SMITH, Judge.\nThe testimony before the referee showed that petitioner was a full-time student at Methodist College and worked as a psychiatric technician on the 3:00 p.m. to 11:30 p.m. shift at Health Services of America Cumberland Hospital. She was laid off from her job due to a staff reduction and filed a claim for unemployment benefits for the weeks from 24 August 1986 to 6 September 1986. Petitioner sought employment through the Employment Security Commission (the Commission), requesting employment after 2:00 p.m. so she could complete her last semester of college during the day. An adjudicator found that petitioner had a shift restriction which rendered her ineligible for benefits for the entire period from 24 August to 6 September. He also found petitioner ineligible for benefits from 24 August to 30 August because she did not conduct an active search for work as required by law. On appeal, the referee found petitioner\u2019s shift restriction rendered her not genuinely attached to the work force and ineligible for benefits. Petitioner appealed to the Employment Security Commission raising two issues: \u201ci) Whether or not the findings of fact are supported by the record; and ii) Whether or not the findings of fact sustained the conclusion of law.\u201d The Commission entered an order vacating the referee\u2019s order and remanding for further proceedings to determine whether petitioner was available for work. On remand, the referee heard evidence on the types of jobs available during the hours petitioner sought work, determined she was not available for work and denied unemployment benefits. On appeal, the Commission affirmed the referee\u2019s opinion, and petitioner sought judicial review before the Superior Court. On 19 May 1987, the trial court entered a judgment affirming the Commission\u2019s decision. Petitioner appeals.\nPetitioner makes four assignments of error relating to the determination that she was not \u201cavailable for work\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 9643(a)(3). By her first assignment of error, she contends the trial court erred by affirming the Commission\u2019s finding that she was not \u201cavailable for work\u201d as a matter of law because she was concurrently a full-time student and a full-time employee when she was laid off by the hospital. By her other assignments of error, she assigns error to the findings that she had a shift restriction, that she was not genuinely attached to the work force, and that she had a type of job and wage restriction which rendered her unavailable for work. We vacate the trial court\u2019s judgment and remand for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law as to petitioner\u2019s eligibility for unemployment benefits.\nTo be eligible for unemployment benefits, an individual must be both \u201cable to work\u201d and \u201cavailable for work.\u201d G.S. 9643(a)(3). The statute provides that \u201c[a]ny person who was engaged in full-time employment concurrent with his school attendance, who is otherwise eligible, shall not be denied benefits because of school enrollment and attendance.\u201d Id. The evidence before the Commission showed that petitioner was both a full-time student and a full-time employee when she was laid off from work. Thus, she cannot be denied unemployment benefits if she is \u201cotherwise eligible\u201d to receive those benefits. In determining whether she is otherwise eligible for benefits, the statute requires that she \u201cnot be denied benefits because of school enrollment and attendance.\u201d Id.\nIn denying benefits to petitioner, the Commission apparently concluded that she was not otherwise eligible for benefits because she was not available for work within the meaning of the statute. \u201cThe phrase \u2018available for work\u2019 is not susceptible of precise definition, and whether a person is available for work differs according to the facts of each individual case.\u201d In re Beatty, 286 N.C. 226, 229, 210 S.E. 2d 193, 195 (1974). The phrase \u201cavailable for work\u201d means available for suitable work as the phrase \u201csuitable work\u201d is used in G.S. 96-14. In re Miller, 243 N.C. 509, 91 S.E. 2d 241 (1956). In Miller, petitioner refused to accept a job which would require her to work on her Sabbath. The Commission found she was ineligible for benefits because she had so limited her availability for work that she was not \u201cavailable for work\u201d within the meaning of G.S. 96-13. In rejecting the Commission\u2019s findings, the Supreme Court noted that under the Commission\u2019s view, \u201cthe rationale of the statute would seem to be that in order to be eligible for benefits a claimant must be \u2018available for work\u2019 at any and all times, night and day, Sunday and week days alike.\u201d Miller, 243 N.C. at 513, 91 S.E. 2d at 244 (emphasis in original). In this case, the Commission found petitioner was not \u201cavailable for work\u201d because she was only available for second shift jobs. However, petitioner was available for only second shift jobs because of her school attendance. The statute forbids denial of unemployment benefits solely because of school enrollment and attendance. As in Miller, petitioner is not required to be available for work at all times.\nWe note that there were no findings of fact addressing whether petitioner was a full-time student or a full-time employee when she was laid off from work. We remand the case to the trial court for further remand for proper findings of fact and conclusions of law to determine whether the provisions of G.S. 96-13(a) (3) dealing with full-time students apply in this case and whether petitioner is \u201cotherwise eligible\u201d for benefits within the meaning of the unemployment compensation statutes.\nVacated and remanded.\nChief Judge HEDRICK and Judge BECTON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "SMITH, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Lumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by T. Diane Phillips, for pe titioner-appe llant.",
      "T. S. Whitaker and Thelma M. Hill for respondent-appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: BRIDGET D. McNEIL, Petitioner v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondents\nNo. 8712SC841\n(Filed 1 March 1988)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.2\u2014 unemployment benefits \u2014 full-time student \u2014 otherwise eligible \u2014 findings inadequate\nWhere a full-time student who was laid off from a full-time job and who requested employment after 2:00 p.m. so that she could complete her last semester of college was denied benefits and appealed, the appeal was remanded for findings of fact to determine whether the provisions of N.C.G.S. \u00a7 96-13(a)(3) dealing with full-time students apply and whether petitioner was \u201cotherwise eligible\u201d for benefits.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Read (J. Milton, Jr.}, Judge. Judgment entered 19 May 1987 in Superior Court, CUMBERLAND County. Heard in the Court of Appeals 3 February 1988.\nThe trial court affirmed an order of the Employment Security Commission denying petitioner unemployment benefits from 24 August 1986 to 6 September 1986. Petitioner appeals.\nLumbee River Legal Services, Inc., by T. Diane Phillips, for pe titioner-appe llant.\nT. S. Whitaker and Thelma M. Hill for respondent-appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0142-01",
  "first_page_order": 170,
  "last_page_order": 172
}