Unemployment Compensation Articles
The Connecticut Superior Court recently affirmed a decision of the Board of Review of
the Employment Security Appeals Division granting unemployment compensation benefits to an
employee who quit her job after her employer raised the health plan deductible to $2,000 per
year. Yellow Cab Garage Co., Inc. v. Administrator, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3268 (Conn.
Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2007). The employee worked as a part-time bookkeeper for over three years
and earned $17.50 per hour. Approximately nine months before she quit, Yellow Cab informed
all employees that it was changing its health insurance plan.
Following the announced change, the employee unsuccessfully complained to her
supervisor about the increased deductible. She continued working for some nine months, quit,
and then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. The Administrator found she quit for
good cause attributable to her employer and awarded benefits. The company appealed and the
Referee reversed. Following the employee’s appeal the Board of Review reversed and found the
unilateral increase in the deductible was akin to a reduction in wages, and constituted good cause
for quitting for reasons attributable to the employer. Therefore, she was entitled to collect
unemployment compensation.
The Board also dismissed the company’s argument that her nine month continued
employment following the deductible increase amounted to acquiescence, thereby waiving her
right to claim her quit was for good cause attributable to her employer. Normally the Board
follows a three month acquiescence rule, but in this case found her continued employment was
necessary to support herself and test the financial impact of the new deductible.
In affirming the Board, the court found there was sufficient evidence in the record to
conclude the claimant quit for good cause attributable to her employer and was eligible for
benefits. This case points out the unintended consequences that increased employee benefit costs
may have on an employee’s right to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
the Employment Security Appeals Division granting unemployment compensation benefits to an
employee who quit her job after her employer raised the health plan deductible to $2,000 per
year. Yellow Cab Garage Co., Inc. v. Administrator, 2007 Conn. Super. LEXIS 3268 (Conn.
Super. Ct. Dec. 7, 2007). The employee worked as a part-time bookkeeper for over three years
and earned $17.50 per hour. Approximately nine months before she quit, Yellow Cab informed
all employees that it was changing its health insurance plan.
Following the announced change, the employee unsuccessfully complained to her
supervisor about the increased deductible. She continued working for some nine months, quit,
and then filed for unemployment compensation benefits. The Administrator found she quit for
good cause attributable to her employer and awarded benefits. The company appealed and the
Referee reversed. Following the employee’s appeal the Board of Review reversed and found the
unilateral increase in the deductible was akin to a reduction in wages, and constituted good cause
for quitting for reasons attributable to the employer. Therefore, she was entitled to collect
unemployment compensation.
The Board also dismissed the company’s argument that her nine month continued
employment following the deductible increase amounted to acquiescence, thereby waiving her
right to claim her quit was for good cause attributable to her employer. Normally the Board
follows a three month acquiescence rule, but in this case found her continued employment was
necessary to support herself and test the financial impact of the new deductible.
In affirming the Board, the court found there was sufficient evidence in the record to
conclude the claimant quit for good cause attributable to her employer and was eligible for
benefits. This case points out the unintended consequences that increased employee benefit costs
may have on an employee’s right to quit and collect unemployment compensation.
An employee will be denied unemployment compensation when an employer proves the
claimant’s pattern of absence amounted to “willful misconduct.” CT Public Act 04-214.
To prove “willful misconduct” the employer must show the employee was absent either without
“good cause,” or without “notice to the employer, which the employee could reasonably have
provided under the circumstances,” on 3 “separate instances” within a 12 month period.
Further, each 2 consecutive day period of absence is counted as a “separate instance.”
For example, if an employee is absent for 3 consecutive days it counts as 2 “instances.”
“Good cause” is defined under the Act as “any compelling personal circumstance which would
normally be recognized by the individual’s employer as a proper excuse for absence, or which
would prevent a reasonable person under the same conditions from reporting to work.”
Examples include personal illness, a serious isolated transportation problem over which the
employee had no control, or a sudden event requiring the person to address a compelling
personal emergency.
“Notice” is defined as notification “through any reasonable method and within any
reasonable timeframe prescribed by the employer.” Even when an employee has “good cause” a
failure to provide “notice” will result in the absence being counted as an “instance.” CT Reg. §
31-236-26d.
Tardiness is handled separately and is considered “willful misconduct” only if the pattern
of tardiness constitutes either “willful disregard of the employer’s interest,” or “a knowing
violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy.” CT Reg. § 31-236-28.
claimant’s pattern of absence amounted to “willful misconduct.” CT Public Act 04-214.
To prove “willful misconduct” the employer must show the employee was absent either without
“good cause,” or without “notice to the employer, which the employee could reasonably have
provided under the circumstances,” on 3 “separate instances” within a 12 month period.
Further, each 2 consecutive day period of absence is counted as a “separate instance.”
For example, if an employee is absent for 3 consecutive days it counts as 2 “instances.”
“Good cause” is defined under the Act as “any compelling personal circumstance which would
normally be recognized by the individual’s employer as a proper excuse for absence, or which
would prevent a reasonable person under the same conditions from reporting to work.”
Examples include personal illness, a serious isolated transportation problem over which the
employee had no control, or a sudden event requiring the person to address a compelling
personal emergency.
“Notice” is defined as notification “through any reasonable method and within any
reasonable timeframe prescribed by the employer.” Even when an employee has “good cause” a
failure to provide “notice” will result in the absence being counted as an “instance.” CT Reg. §
31-236-26d.
Tardiness is handled separately and is considered “willful misconduct” only if the pattern
of tardiness constitutes either “willful disregard of the employer’s interest,” or “a knowing
violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy.” CT Reg. § 31-236-28.
