CUIAB Adopts a New Precedent Board Decision Redefining “Domestic Quit”

Article Information

Published on Tuesday, 11 October 2011 19:32

The California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (CUIAB) adopted a new precedent board decision, P-B-497, related to the issue of a “domestic quit.”  A “domestic quit” involves situations in which the individual who applies for unemployment insurance benefits (claimant) quits his or her job because their significant other is moving to a location from which it would be  impractical to commute. Historically, the Employment Development Department (EDD) and the CUIAB have treated the “domestic quit” as exclusively applying to a spouse or a domestic partner.  In this case, the claimant had a same sex partner, but they were not married or registered as domestic partners because although they wanted to get married, and were planning to do so, the passage of Proposition 8 prevented the marriage. Further, they believed that the status of registered domestic partners was inadequate.  The circumstances of the claimant’s significant other changed due to her ailing mother in Rhode Island, which required that the couple move in order to care for the mother. As a result, the claimant quit her job.  Since their partnership did not fall under traditional application of a "domestic quit” (i.e. a married person or domestic partner) the Unemployment Insurance Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) denied benefits, specifically referring to the California Supreme Court’s decision in Norman v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1982) 131 Cal. App. 946, which precluded such a claimant from receiving benefits. Further, the ALJ noted that although the Supreme Court created an exception in McGregor v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1984) 37 Cal. 3d. 205, for unmarried claimants who have children with a significant other, this claimant and her partner did not have children, thus the ALJ ruled that the exception did not apply. The claimant appealed, and in P-B-497, the CUIAB explicitly adopted a different interpretation of Norman which held, in pertinent part, that “[w]hen a spouse or domestic partner of a claimant moves to a place from which it is impossible or impractical for the claimant to commute to his or her job, there is a presumption that the claimant has good cause to resign from work to follow the spouse or partner.  In the case of other people who make such a move, there is no such presumption, but a claimant in this situation might still be able to demonstrate a prima facie case of good cause for resigning by showing that the legal, financial, emotional and other ties between those involved are so imperative and compelling as to make the voluntary leaving involuntary.”  Therefore, according to the CUIAB, “[a] rule requiring consideration of the totality of the circumstances surrounding a claimant’s decision to resign is also more faithful to the language of section 1256 than fixed rules based on the claimant’s status…[and also] furthers the fundamental purpose of the unemployment insurance laws, which is to provide benefits to those who are unemployed through no fault of their own. “ The CUIAB remanded the case back to the ALJ to analyze the facts in light of their decision.  Read More.