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 Gloria L. CHAIT, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 14, 1998, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.
After leaving her former job as an office assistant, claimant was referred by an employment agency to interview for a customer service position paying $400 per week. Following the interview, claimant was offered the position but declined to accept it due to the proposed working hours and concerns that the business was not located in a sufficiently well lit area; thus, claimant believed that her safety would be compromised. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving benefits because she refused an offer of suitable employment without good cause.
We affirm. Although fear for one's safety may constitute reasonable cause for refusing employment, there is substantial evidence in the record to support the Board's conclusion that claimant's fears were not reasonable under the circumstances (see, Matter of Tosto [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 672, 673, 671 N.Y.S.2d 171; Matter of Kaufman [Hudacs], 196 A.D.2d 914, 602 N.Y.S.2d 226). As for claimant's objection to the proposed working hours, we note that a claimant's preference for particular working hours generally does not constitute good cause to refuse an offer of suitable employment (see, Matter of De Angelis [Hudacs], 199 A.D.2d 739, 740, 605 N.Y.S.2d 471). Given the proof in the record, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: June 17, 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)