Case Title: Warren v. BD. OF REVIEW OF MISS. EMPLOY. SEC.

Citation: 463 So. 2d 1076

Docket Number: 

State: mississippi

Court: Mississippi Supreme Court

Date: 1985-01-30T00:00:00Z

Document:
463 So. 2d 1076 (1985) Phoebe H. WARREN v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF the MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION. No. 55415. Supreme Court of Mississippi. January 30, 1985. Max E. Warren, Jr., for appellant. Fred J. Lotterhos, Jackson, for appellee. Before WALKER, P.J., and HAWKINS and ROBERTSON, JJ. HAWKINS, Justice, for the Court: This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Lee County affirming the denial of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission of unemployment benefits to Phoebe H. Warren. Before us is the constitutionality of a statute which prohibits payment of unemployment benefits to a wife who leaves the state to accompany her husband: Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 1983). Mrs. Warren was a teacher in the public schools of Lee County. Her husband went into active duty with the United States Army, and he and Mrs. Warren moved to Florida at the end of the 1982-1983 school term. Mrs. Warren had previously signed an employment contract for the subsequent school term. *1077 The referee denied the benefits based upon this section, the Board of Review of the Commission affirmed, and upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Lee County, the Commission denial was affirmed. The Commission and circuit judge were of the opinion this statute prohibited benefits. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 1984), also Chapter 364, Laws of 1983 provides as follows: Mrs. Warren does not dispute that under the statute she is denied benefits. Her sole argument is that this statute is unconstitutional. While her argument is interesting, and we agree that there is a division of authority on this question in other jurisdictions, we are persuaded that the act is constitutional. In Albritton v. City of Winona, 181 Miss. 75 at 96, 178 So. 799 (1938), we stated: The Commission and circuit judge found that Mrs. Warren's decision to accompany her husband was a "marital, filial or domestic circumstance," and therefore she was ineligible for benefits. We must hold the Legislature is the policymaker in determining whether or not it will deny benefits to persons who make a choice to accompany their spouses to another locality. While hardships may upon occasion arise because of this statute, this does not offend any constitutional guaranty under either the equal protection or due process provisions of our state and federal constitutions. As we noted, there is a division of authority on this question. See: 21 A.L.R. 4th, Section C.(9) pp. 344-347 and D.(11), pp. 354-356. Utah has a statute which denies benefits to an employee who leaves work to join a spouse in another locality. Utah Code Ann. § 35-4-5(a) (Supp. 1983). In interpreting this statute, the Utah Supreme Court unanimously held the statute was constitutional. In a decision involving six claimants, Chandler, et al. v. Department of Employment Security, 678 P.2d 315 at 318 (Utah 1984): Likewise, we find Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 1984) constitutional. AFFIRMED. PATTERSON, C.J., WALKER and ROY NOBLE LEE, P.JJ., and DAN M. LEE, PRATHER, ROBERTSON, SULLIVAN and ANDERSON, JJ., concur.