IN RE: the Claim of Bobby T. YOUNGBLOOD

Reset A A Font size: Print

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

IN RE: the Claim of Bobby T. YOUNGBLOOD, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Decided: September 23, 2004

Before:  MERCURE, J.P., SPAIN, CARPINELLO, MUGGLIN and KANE, JJ. Bobby T. Youngblood, New York City, appellant pro se. Eliot Spitzer, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 15, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.

Claimant was the district manager of a retail laundry chain.   His employer suspected that he was having an affair with an employee who he supervised and, as a result, planned to transfer him to the position of store specialist where he would not have contact with this individual.   The position carried the same salary and benefits, but required claimant to work at only one location, instead of many.   Claimant resigned because he believed the new position was a demotion.   His application for unemployment insurance benefits was denied on the ground that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause.   Claimant appeals.

 We affirm.   Dissatisfaction with a change in job assignment, and resulting loss of prestige or privileges, does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment particularly where the essential terms and conditions of employment remain unchanged (see Matter of Anderson [Suffolk County Dept. of Civil Serv.-Commissioner of Labor], 8 A.D.3d 863, 864, 778 N.Y.S.2d 569 [2004];  Matter of Bingel [Commissioner of Labor], 306 A.D.2d 780, 781, 761 N.Y.S.2d 392 [2003] ).   Here, despite the fact that claimant would receive the same benefits and salary, and also perform managerial duties as a store specialist, he perceived the position to be a demotion because of the loss of status and perks.   Resigning for this reason does not constitute good cause for leaving employment and, therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision.

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Copied to clipboard