Jaime v. DIR., DEPT. OF EMPLOYMENT SEC.
704 N.E.2d 721, 235 Ill. Dec. 148, 301 Ill. App. 3d 930 (1998)
Rule of Law:
A substantial, unilateral change in employment conditions, such as an employer's significant relocation that creates insurmountable transportation difficulties for an employee, can constitute 'good cause attributable to the employer' for voluntarily leaving work, thereby entitling the employee to unemployment insurance benefits.
Facts:
- Maria Jaime worked for Ed Miniat, Inc. (Miniat) for approximately 10 years and resided at 2307 South Marshall Boulevard in Chicago.
- In December 1995, Miniat moved its place of business from 38th Street and Halsted Street in Chicago to 16250 South Dakin in South Holland, a distance of approximately 16 miles.
- Following Miniat’s move, Jaime continued to work for about six weeks, obtaining a ride with a coworker.
- Jaime resigned from Miniat on February 13, 1996, because the coworker with whom she had been getting a ride had stopped working for the company, leaving Jaime without a means of getting to work.
- Jaime did not drive and required a Spanish translator for legal proceedings due to her limited English proficiency.
- Public transportation to Miniat's new location in South Holland would have created an undue burden on Jaime.
Procedural Posture:
- On February 11, 1996, Maria Jaime applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the Illinois Department of Employment Security (IDES).
- On March 16, 1996, an IDES claims adjudicator denied Jaime's claim, finding she 'voluntarily left work without good cause attributable to her employer.'
- Jaime requested reconsideration of the claims adjudicator's determination.
- On April 25, 1996, a hearing was held before an IDES referee, where Jaime appeared pro se.
- On April 26, 1996, the referee issued a decision affirming the claims adjudicator’s decision and denying Jaime unemployment insurance benefits.
- On May 8, 1996, Jaime, represented by counsel, requested review of the referee’s decision by the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Board of Review).
- On August 14, 1996, the Board of Review issued its decision, affirming the referee’s decision and concluding that Jaime had properly been denied unemployment insurance benefits.
- On August 23, 1996, Jaime filed a complaint for administrative review of the Board of Review’s decision in the circuit court of Cook County, asking the court to take judicial notice of the distance between Miniat's locations.
- On February 6, 1997, the circuit court reversed the Board of Review’s decision, finding it contrary to law and against the manifest weight of the evidence, and entered judgment in favor of Jaime.
- The Director of IDES and the Board of Review of IDES (defendants) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employer's substantial relocation, which significantly increases an employee's commute and eventually eliminates their sole means of transportation, constitute 'good cause attributable to the employer' for voluntarily leaving employment, entitling the employee to unemployment insurance benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice McNamara
Yes, an employer's substantial relocation that significantly increases an employee's commute and eventually eliminates their sole means of transportation does constitute 'good cause attributable to the employer' for voluntarily leaving employment, entitling the employee to unemployment insurance benefits. The court affirmed the circuit court's reversal, holding that Miniat's 16-mile relocation constituted 'good cause attributable to the employer' for Jaime’s termination. The court emphasized that the Unemployment Insurance Act aims to alleviate economic insecurity for those unemployed through no fault of their own and must be liberally construed to favor benefit awards. While generally an employee's transportation is not the employer's responsibility, a 'substantial, unilateral change in employment which renders the job unsuitable' can be good cause attributable to the employer. The court adopted the reasoning from Watson v. Employment Security Comm'n, holding that an employer’s plant relocation, done for its own benefit and over which the employee had no control, made the leaving 'attributable to the employer.' Jaime's actions—continuing to work for six weeks and only resigning after her coworker-ride quit—demonstrated reasonable efforts to maintain employment and were not indicative of an unwillingness to work. The Board of Review’s findings showed Jaime desired to continue working and the relocation was Miniat's act for its benefit. The court found a causal connection between Miniat’s move and Jaime’s inability to get to work, noting the undue burden of public transportation. The court also rejected the argument that Jaime's continuation of work for a period after the move precluded her claim, stating she should not be penalized for attempting to maintain employment.
Analysis:
This case broadens the interpretation of 'good cause attributable to the employer' under unemployment insurance statutes, establishing that significant employer relocation can render a job unsuitable and justify an employee's voluntary departure. It highlights the importance of liberally construing unemployment acts to benefit those involuntarily unemployed and suggests that an employee's reasonable efforts to adapt to changed circumstances should be commended, not penalized. Future cases may rely on this precedent when evaluating claims where significant, employer-initiated changes in working conditions, particularly concerning commute and accessibility, lead to an employee's resignation.
