Court Opinion

ID: 9736715
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 19:03:20.552003+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:27:08.248669
License: Public Domain

Krivosha, C.J.,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent from the majority in this case. The majority has determined that an employee who is taken home for allegedly drinking and told he should remain at home until the employer lets him know something in a few days has voluntarily left his employment without good cause, thereby disqualifying himself for unemployment *540benefits for the week in which he left and for not less than 7 nor more than 10 weeks immediately following. An employee is not required to remain at home unemployed and uncompensated until the employer decides what further action, if any, he will take. It may very well be that the employer had good cause to terminate the employee. He chose, however, not to do so. He was not, therefore, at liberty to make the employee “stand in the comer” until he, the employer, decided what further punishment, if any, should be administered. Having refused to permit the employee to work and earn a salary without discharging him, the employee had good cause to leave his employment. I would have so held.
White, J., joins in this dissent.