Case Title: Lincoln v. Dept. of Employment Training

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: vermont

Court: Vermont Supreme Court

Date: 1990-12-01T00:00:00Z

Document:
NOTICE:  This opinion is subject to motions for reargument under V.R.A.P.
40 as well as formal revision before publication in the Vermont Reports.
Readers are requested to notify the Reporter of Decisions, Vermont Supreme
Court, 111 State Street, Montpelier, Vermont 05602 of any errors in order
that corrections may be made before this opinion goes to press.


                                No. 90-019


Joshua Lincoln                               Supreme Court

                                             On Appeal from
     v.                                      Employment Security Board

Department of Employment & Training,         December Term, 1990
Shelburne Veterinary Hospital,
Employer


Lawrence Leland and Mary Anne Gucciardi, board members

Eileen M. Blackwood of Paul, Frank & Collins, Inc., Burlington, for
  defendant-appellant

Brooke Pearson, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee


PRESENT:  Allen, C.J., Gibson, Dooley and Johnson, JJ.


     ALLEN, C.J.   Claimant sought unemployment compensation from an animal
hospital where he had worked during May, 1987.  The Employment Security
Board rejected the employer's contention that claimant had left its services
voluntarily, with the result that the employer incurred unemployment tax
liability.  We reverse and remand.
     Dr. Steven Metz, owner and president of Shelburne Veterinary Hospital,
Inc. (SVHI), hired claimant, Dr. Joshua Lincoln, as a so-called relief
veterinarian during May, 1987.  Claimant was to be responsible for paying
his own taxes and was to receive a flat daily rate of $150.  At the outset
the length of this relationship was agreed to be one month, at the end of
which their relationship would end.
     Before this relationship, claimant had performed similar services as a
relief veterinarian for other practices.  After claimant began working, Dr.
Metz offered him an annual salary of $25,000 if he would remain past the
one-month period as an associate veterinarian.  Because he had earned annual
wages of about $33,000 as a full-time employee of another veterinary
hospital, claimant rejected this offer as too low.
     After leaving SVHI, Dr. Lincoln obtained another job which did not
begin until July, 1987.  He filed for, and received, unemployment compen-
sation for the interim period, which was charged to SVHI, his last
employer.  The chief appeals referee sustained the decision of the chief
claims adjudicator, concluding that Dr. Lincoln was not disqualified for
benefits under 21 V.S.A. { 1344(a)(2)(A) because he had not left the employ
of SVHI "voluntarily without good cause attributable to [SVHI]."
     Following the referee's decision, the employer requested that the
evidence be reopened to clarify the testimony concerning the reason for the
four-week limitation on Dr. Lincoln's employment.  Dr. Metz sought to
present additional testimony of his own and of his two nurses that Dr.
Lincoln's own time commitments were the reason for the four-week employment
limitation.  That request was refused, and the Board affirmed the referee's
decision.  The present appeal followed.
     The issue on appeal is the correctness of the Board's conclusion that,
having accepted temporary employment, Dr. Lincoln was not disqualified for
leaving SVHI's employ "voluntarily without good cause attributable to
[SVHI]."  In reaching this conclusion, the Board stated:
         Even assuming that the sole reason why the employment
         lasted no more than four weeks was the insistance [sic]
         of the claimant, the relevant fact is that the two
         parties agreed, for whatever reason, to a term of
         employment lasting a fixed duration.  In the absence of
         any showing that the employer had continued work
         available for the claimant on the same terms and
         conditions, as opposed to the changed $25,000 per year
         permanent relationship offered to the claimant, the
         claimant simply cannot be disqualified for unemployment
         compensation benefits at the expiration of the agreed
         upon term of employment.  (Emphasis added).

     In sum, the Board concluded that as long as there is mutual agreement
to a fixed term of employment an employee cannot be disqualified for bene-
fits, even if the employee rather than the employer insists on the fixed
term.  The Board drew that conclusion from our holding in Anthony Adams, AIA
Architect v. Department of Employment Security, 139 Vt. 413,