Opinion ID: 2570655
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: The Employer Final Action Requirement

Text: ¶ 18 Verizon argues, among other things, that it did not take the final action in the separation process, as required by WAC 192-150-100(1)(c). A brief history of the requirement is instructive. The employer final action requirement sprang from Court of Appeals opinions construing former WAC 192-16-070 (1993), repealed by Wash. St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX (June 24, 2001), the predecessor to the regulation in question here. The previous version of the employer-initiated layoff exception in former WAC 192-16-070 read: A layoff or reduction-in-force will not be considered to be a voluntary quit pursuant to RCW 50.20.050, if: (1) The employer announced a layoff or reduction-in-force; and (2) The claimant volunteered to be one of the people included in the layoff or reduction-in-force; and (3) The employer determines [sic] which individuals are laid off or released through a reduction-in-force; and (4) The employer accordingly laid off or released the claimant due to a reduction-in-force. ¶ 19 By 1998, there was a Court of Appeals division split over the meaning of former WAC 192-16-070. In Ortega v. Employment Security Department, 90 Wash.App. 617, 624-25, 953 P.2d 827 (1998), Division One held that in order for an employee to qualify for the exception, involuntary layoffs must be part of the same phase of the RIF in which the employee volunteers to participate. [6] In Nielsen v. Employment Security Department, 93 Wash.App. 21, 966 P.2d 399 (1998), a case arising from the very same factual record as Ortega, Division Three held that the plaintiff did qualify for the employer-initiated layoff exception despite participating in the voluntary rather than mandatory phase of the RIF. Id. at 37, 966 P.2d 399. Nielsen relied on the reasoning in Morillo v. Director of Division of Employment Security, 394 Mass. 765, 477 N.E.2d 412 (1985), in which the Massachusetts Supreme Court held that whenever the employer takes the initial and final actions in the termination process, the termination is not voluntary and does not disqualify the employee from receiving benefits. Nielsen, 93 Wash.App. at 38-39, 966 P.2d 399 (citing Morillo, 477 N.E.2d. at 413). ¶ 20 The ESD responded to the conflicting Court of Appeals opinions by announcing that it intended to rewrite the rule to clarify[] that an individual who volunteers for layoff will not be considered to have separated from work for a disqualifying reason when the layoff is initiated and announced by the employer and the employer takes the final action to terminate the employee. Wash. St. Reg. XX-XX-XXX (Feb. 5, 2001) (emphasis added). The resulting rule was WAC 192-150-100, the rule at issue here.