Title: Stoodley v. Department of Employment Security
Citation: 449 A.2d 980
Docket Number: 185-81
State: Vermont
Issuer: Vermont Supreme Court
Date: July 15, 1982

449 A.2d 980 (1982) Jennifer P. STOODLEY v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. No. 185-81. Supreme Court of Vermont. July 15, 1982. Dan Jerman, Vermont Legal Aid, Rutland, for plaintiff-appellant. Matthew R. Gould, Montpelier, for defendant-appellee. *981 Before BARNEY, C.J., and BILLINGS, HILL, UNDERWOOD and PECK, JJ. UNDERWOOD, Justice. The claimant, a full-time college student, appeals a decision of the Vermont Employment Security Board upholding her disqualification from unemployment benefits because she was "unavailable for work within the meaning of our unemployment compensation statute." The relevant statute provides: 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3). Ability to work and availability for suitable employment are two of the preconditions to eligibility for unemployment compensation benefits. 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3); Ellis v. Department of Employment Security, 133 Vt. 533, 535, 346 A.2d 221, 222 (1975). The defendant bears the burden of establishing that she meets these two criteria. Id.; In re Platt, 130 Vt. 329, 331, 292 A.2d 822, 825 (1972); Willard v. Vermont Unemployment Compensation Commission, 122 Vt. 398, 403, 173 A.2d 843, 847 (1961). Ordinarily, the claimant can make a prima facie showing of availability for work by registering at an employment office and providing the department with evidence of compliance with "such other efforts to secure suitable work as the commissioner may reasonably direct." 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3); In re Prouty, 131 Vt. 504, 507, 310 A.2d 12, 14 (1973). When, however, "the claimant so limits [her] availability as to be tantamount to a refusal to accept suitable work, the burden is upon the claimant to show `good cause' for such a refusal." Id. at 507-08, 310 A.2d at 15. But "the mere fact that a claimant places some restrictions on the type of work [s]he is willing to accept, does not necessarily make [her] unavailable for work in a disqualifying sense." In re Platt, supra, 130 Vt. at 333, 292 A.2d at 825. "[A] claimant will not be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits when [s]he refuses to accept unsuitable employment." Wallace v. Department of Employment Security, 134 Vt. 513, 514, 365 A.2d 517, 518-19 (1976). In the last analysis, availability for work as prescribed by 21 V.S.A. § 1343(a)(3) is a factual question and must be decided on a case by case basis. Carson v. Department of Employment Security, 135 Vt. 312, 315, 376 A.2d 355, 357-58 (1977). The Board found as a fact that the claimant had complied with the pertinent regulations, and acknowledged her testimony that school was secondary to work. It further noted the absence of any evidence "that any employers were inhibited from hiring her by her informing them that she was a full-time student, although, on occasion she expressed a preference for hours which happen not to conflict with her school hours and on some applications did note the fact that she was attending school." Despite these findings, however, the Board concluded: The Board rested its conclusion on the "sum total" of four factors. Our review of *982 each of the four, however, leaves us unable to find any sums to total. We take up each factor seriatim. The claimant filled out a work registration form on April 29, 1980. One of the questions asked, "Did you attend school in the past 52 weeks or do you plan to attend school?" She checked the "yes" box, and indicated that she had completed one year of college. She testified that she could not recall being asked specifically about future plans, but stated that she would have described her plans for the next semester if asked. The Department representative, in what is either his statement or a leading question to the claimant, said: Assuming arguendo that this statement constitutes evidence, a rather large assumption, it is evidence only that she was instructed to report future school attendance. It is not evidence that she did not do so later, during the summer, as she claims. Nor does it override the fact that, when specifically asked by an auditor, she reported school attendance, leading to the present proceedings. Moreover, the Board's attribution of a motive to the nondisclosure was gratuitous and completely unsupported by the record. The claimant unequivocally denied that she was ever instructed that school attendance could affect her benefits. The Department presented no evidence to the contrary. The claimant's attempts to broaden her work search undermine, not support, the notion that she was not interested in work. The record demonstrates that she did not receive a single job referral from the Department. If her desire was to use unemployment benefits to finance her schooling, she could have continued to seek a type of work for which there was no demand. Moreover, she had originally stated that she was looking for "any full time" work, that she would be willing to accept "most anything," and would work for $3.10 an hour. Her search for retail work is perfectly consistent with those responses. The Department's rationale for thinking that she was bound to confine her efforts to secretarial and accounting work comes, not from her answer to queries about what she was looking for, but in response to a question about her qualifications. This finding is unsupported by the evidence. The only evidence in the record deals with when most office and retail sales work is performed, and what the claimant's class hours were. No evidence supports the proposition that school "prevented her from being available" for work. In fact, the claimant herself testified before the appeals referee that she would quit school altogether rather than forego a job offer, but she noted that she could rearrange her hours if she found a job. Moreover, her attorney, on appeal to the Board noted that he had failed to document her course flexibility as fully as he might, and requested the opportunity *983 for a remand if the conflict of hours was a significant point in the Board's mind. He stated: "[E]vidence is available that every course she took she either could have taken it at a different houreither at night or on weekendsor, she could have made arrangements with the professor for that course to pursue independent study." The characterization of the claimant's financial aid as a "welfare" grant is without support in the record. Moreover, she has no more "vested financial interest" than any other studentand less than a student whose education has been financed by her own money, rather than a grant. In any event, allowing this one factor to support the Board's decision would amount to endorsing a per se rule against unemployment compensation benefits to all who have invested time and money in an education, something the Board claims it does not wish to do, and which it has no power to do. Individuals have worked to support themselves while pursuing higher education as long as there have been colleges and universities. Rather than permit per se rules, we have held, "the question of availability lends itself to resolution solely on a case by case basis, and that only when the facts peculiar to the claim under review `deny the existence of reasonable availability' could benefits be refused." Carson v. Department of Employment Security, supra, 135 Vt. at 315, 376 A.2d at 357-58 (citation omitted). The Board's reasons for denying benefits in this case, taken singly or together, are inadequate. Porter v. Department of Employment Security, 139 Vt. 405, 412, 430 A.2d 450, 454 (1981) (citations omitted). Reversed and remanded for computation of benefits.