Case Name: KEITH v. CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1972-07-10
Citations: 41 Mich. App. 708
Docket Number: Docket No. 10879
Parties: KEITH v CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Judges: Before: Levin, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 41
Pages: 708–716

Head Matter:
KEITH v CHRYSLER CORPORATION
Opinion of the Court
1. Unemployment Compensation — Refusal of Work — Personal Reasons.
A person entitled to unemployment compensation is obligated to mitigate his wage-loss damages, and he may not refuse suitable work merely for personal reasons.
Dissent by Levin, P. J.
2. Unemployment Compensation — Employee’s Obligation — Loss of Benefits.
A person otherwise entitled to beneñts is obligated to mitigate his wage-loss damages, and may lose his right to unemployment beneñts if he refuses to report for available suitable work, unless such refusal is for "good cause” (MCLA 421.29).
3. Unemployment Compensation — "Good Cause” — Personal Reasons.
The term "good cause” as used in the Employment Security Act means nothing more than good reason — a substantial reason— for refusing to accept the proffered employment, and a cause personal to the employee can be "good cause” when it would be deemed by reasonable men valid and not indicative of an unwillingness to work (MCLA 421.29).
4. Unemployment Compensation — Good Cause.
An employee has good cause for rejecting a proffered job where it effectively bars the employee from returning to or accepting a job which he prefers and which he has good reason to believe he can obtain (MCLA 421.29).
References for Points in Headnotes
[1-4] 48 Am Jur, Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, and Retirement Funds § 35.
Refusal of type of work other than that in which employee was formerly engaged as affecting right to unemployment compensation, 97 ALR2d 1125.
Unemployment compensation: Eligibility as affected by claimant’s refusal to work at particular times or on particular shifts, 35 ALR3d 1129.
20 Am Jur 2d, Courts §§ 184,189, 200-202.
5. Courts — Court of Appeals — Precedent.
As a matter of policy, the Michigan Court of Appeals has concluded that one panel is not bound by the decision of another panel and that it is for the Supreme Court to resolve conflicts.
Appeal from Macomb, Alton H. Noe, J.
Submitted Division 2 October 12, 1971, at Detroit.
(Docket No. 10879.)
Decided July 10, 1972.
Leave to appeal granted, 388 Mich 800.
John Keith presented his claim for unemployment compensation against Chrysler Corporation. Benefits denied. Plaintiff appealed to circuit court. Affirmed. Plaintiff appeals.
Affirmed.
Stephen I Schlossberg, John A. Fillion, Jordan Rossen, Bernard F Ashe, and Stanley Lubin, for plaintiff.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Robert A. Derengoski, Solicitor General, and James H. White, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant commission.
Clifford L. Johnson, for defendant employer.
Before: Levin, P. J., and R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

Opinion:
R. B. Burns and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
This case is controlled by Losada v Chrysler Corp, 24 Mich App 656 (1970), leave den 383 Mich 827 (1970).
Affirmed. Costs to appellees.