Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Angela ORLIK, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 12, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant was hired as an on-call phlebotomist required to work flexible shifts. During the course of her employment, claimant worked a varied schedule, including the 11:30 P.M. to 7:30 A.M. shift. After claimant was scheduled to work this shift from October 5, 1997 to October 9, 1997, she called the employer and stated that she could not work this schedule because it made her too tired and she could not properly handle her other jobs. Substantial evidence supports the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board's ruling disqualifying claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she left her employment without good cause. It is well settled that once the terms of employment have been agreed upon, such terms cannot thereafter be invoked as valid grounds for quitting (see, Matter of Cinque [Sweeney], 224 A.D.2d 912, 638 N.Y.S.2d 794). Moreover, “dissatisfaction with the * * * hours assigned by one's employer does not constitute good cause for resigning” (Matter of Cudnik [Sweeney], 235 A.D.2d 888, 653 N.Y.S.2d 175). Finally, although claimant asserts that lack of sleep interfered with her health, there is no evidence that she received medical advice to leave her employment (see, Matter of Robinson [Sweeney], 245 A.D.2d 939, 940, 666 N.Y.S.2d 811).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 14, 1999
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)