Case Name: Rosie Adams BATEMAN v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY and F. C. Doyal, Administrator, Louisiana Department of Employment Security
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1974-03-25
Citations: 292 So. 2d 228
Docket Number: No. 53651
Parties: Rosie Adams BATEMAN v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY and F. C. Doyal, Administrator, Louisiana Department of Employment Security.
Judges: SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 292
Pages: 228–234

Head Matter:
Rosie Adams BATEMAN v. HOWARD JOHNSON COMPANY and F. C. Doyal, Administrator, Louisiana Department of Employment Security.
No. 53651.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
March 25, 1974.
Jerry H. Smith, Staff Atty., Legal Aid Society of Baton Rouge, Baton Rouge, for plaintiff-applicant.
Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, for Dept, of Employment Security.

Opinion:
BARHAM, Justice.
Rosie Adams Bateman applied for unemployment benefits based on her employment by Howard Johnson Company as a short order cook. The Louisiana Department of Employment Security disqualified plaintiff from receiving benefits, a decision that was appealed and affirmed by the Appeals Referee. The Louisiana Board of Review rejected the appeal and affirmed the Appeals Referee. Plaintiff then resorted to the courts where the Administrator of the Department of Employment Security alleged that the court's jurisdiction was limited to questions of law only by R.S. 23:1634. He then presented two questions of law for decision: (1) are the findings of fact supported by sufficient, legal, competent evidence as a matter of law; and (2) based on said findings, are the Board's legal conclusions correct as a matter of law? The administrative decision was upheld by the Nineteenth Judicial District Court and by the First Circuit Court of Appeal. La.App., 277 So.2d 764 (1973). We granted plaintiff's writ application. 279 So.2d 692 (La.1973). The Department chose not to argue or brief the case and submitted it on the record.
The Appeals Referee made the following finding of facts:
"The claimant worked for the above employer for seven days as a short-order cook for a rate of pay of $1.93 per hour. She was working from 6:00 p.m. until 11:00 p.m. each day. Her last night of employment with the company was the night of the curfew in Baton Rouge that began at approximately 9:00 p.m. The claimant was unable to obtain transportation home from her job and did not return after being employed for only a couple of days. The claimant was' aware that there was no public transportation available after approximately 7:00 p.m. each evening. The claimant on many occasions had to pay a taxi to go home each night. The company does not provide transportation to and from work for its employees."
There is no evidence to support the finding that the plaintiff knew there was no public transportation available after 7:00 p.m. In fact, at the hearing, claimant testified, " and I didn't know that the bus stopped running after 6 o'clock The record clearly establishes that public transportation was unavailable at the time plaintiff's work shift ended and that she was forced to take a taxi home each evening at a cost of $3.80. Her last day of employment the city of Baton Rouge was under a curfew following a racial disturbance and no transportation was available. Additionally, claimant attempted to secure transportation from family, friends, and co-workers the days she worked at Howard Johnson's.
The reason plaintiff gave for quitting her job was the lack of transportation. R.S. 23:1601(1) provides in pertinent part:
"An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(1) If the administrator finds that he has left his employment without good cause connected with his employment."
Where an employee terminates his employment for purely personal reasons, he is not entitled to receive benefits under this act. Hargrove v. Brown, 247 La. 689, 174 So.2d 120 (1965). To determine what is "good cause connected with the employment" it is necessary to examine another section of the act. R.S. 23:1601 (3)(a) provides:
"In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the administrator shall consider the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation, and the distance of the available work from his residence."
The availability and cost of transportation to and from a job is a factor in determining the suitability of employment. Where transportation is unavailable or available only at prohibitive cost it may render the employment unsuitable. See Immel v. Brown, 143 So.2d 156 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1962); Johnson v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security, 166 So. 2d 366 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1964). Workers who quit their jobs because their transpor-ation ceased have been held entitled to benefits since their reason for leaving were employment connected. See Haskett v. Brown, 165 So.2d 25 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1964); Brown v. Brown, 153 So.2d 190 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1963). This employee had to pay forty per cent of her wages for transportation ($4.10 out of a gross pay of $9.65). Termination of her employment was for good cause connected with her employment.
The judgments of the lower courts are reversed. The Louisiana Department of Employment Security is ordered to pay unemployment compensation to Rosie Adams Bateman.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and assigns reasons.