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 Carol M. CHIPMAN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 18, 2002, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant was employed part time for a candy company as a retail sales direct merchandiser servicing both grocery stores and convenience stores. After a nationwide restructuring of the company, claimant's territory was increased but grocery stores were removed from her client base. Claimant resigned, claiming that she was unable to adequately service the area due to the work increase and her preexisting disability. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her application for unemployment insurance benefits finding that claimant voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
It is well settled that dissatisfaction with one's assignment does not constitute good cause for leaving employment (see Matter of Dragoi [Commissioner of Labor], 288 A.D.2d 685, 732 N.Y.S.2d 685 [2001]; Matter of Pietropaolo [Commissioner of Labor], 271 A.D.2d 795, 706 N.Y.S.2d 210 [2000] ). The representative of the employer testified that the time required to perform her duties would not change significantly because convenience stores require less time to service than grocery stores. In any event, claimant would be compensated for any additional time. Although claimant maintains that her preexisting disability prevented her from servicing the increased territory or working additional time, claimant never attempted to service the new area before resigning. Moreover, claimant was not given any medical restrictions as to the number of hours she could work nor was she advised by her physician to quit. Under these circumstances, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant left her employment for personal and noncompelling reasons (see Matter of Pitcher [Sweeney], 231 A.D.2d 794, 647 N.Y.S.2d 61 [1996] ).
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: September 18, 2003
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)