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 Eleanor J. MURRAY, Appellant. Team Jo-Ann, Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 28, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant worked for a fabric store for approximately 1 1/212 years. She started as a sales associate earning $7.50 per hour, progressed to a seasonal supervisor earning $12 per hour and was ultimately promoted to a team leader earning $32,000 per year. In October 2004, her salary was increased to $38,000 per year as the result of a competitive job offer. In October 2005, she resigned from her position after she did not receive a raise that had allegedly been promised to her. She applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving them because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause. Claimant appeals.
Initially, we note that a claimant's general dissatisfaction with working conditions, including salary, has been held not to constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Arbitaljacoby [Commissioner of Labor], 10 A.D.3d 760, 760, 781 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2004]; Matter of Luta [Commissioner of Labor], 305 A.D.2d 786, 787, 759 N.Y.S.2d 800 [2003] ). In the case at hand, claimant testified that she was unhappy with the long hours that she had to work during the summer of 2005 necessitated by the shortage of staff, and that she resigned in October 2005 after she was denied a salary increase that she claims had been promised to her the previous October. Claimant's manager stated that he did not recall promising claimant a salary increase and had no record of such a promise, and the Board was entitled to credit his testimony over claimant's (see Matter of Kanela [Commissioner of Labor], 21 A.D.3d 632, 633, 799 N.Y.S.2d 333 [2005] ). In any event, the proffered reason for claimant's resignation would not entitle her to benefits (see Matter of Feliciano [Commissioner of Labor], 39 A.D.3d 1115, 834 N.Y.S.2d 391 [2007]; Matter of Hughes [Commissioner of Labor], 37 A.D.3d 966, 829 N.Y.S.2d 752 [2007] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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: June 14, 2007
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)