Spangler v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

California Court of Appeal Jan 13, 1971 No. Civ. 27330Published

Before: David

AI Brief

AI-generated · verify before citing

Holding. The court held that an unemployment claimant is not disqualified from benefits due to their grooming or attire unless there is evidence that such appearance actually prevented them from obtaining available employment. Because the record lacked evidence that potential employers were available to interview the appellant, the denial of benefits could not be sustained.

Issues

Whether a claimant's grooming and attire rendered them unavailable for work under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253.
Whether the denial of benefits is supported by evidence that the claimant's appearance eliminated available employment opportunities.

Disposition. reversed

Quotations verified verbatim against the opinion

“appellant has no constitutional right to unemployment compensation paid by former employers if his sartorial eccentricities or sloppy grooming chill his employment prospects”

“there was no adequate showing that there was employment to be had (within the definition of Unemp. Ins. Code, § 1258) but for the voluntary failure of appellant to spruce up.”

“Since there is no showing that there was any potential employer to interview, the judgment is reversed”

Opinion

DAVID, J.

This appeal follows denial of a writ of mandate in a proceeding under Code of Civil Procedure section 1094.5, in which appellant sought to compel vacation of respondent Board’s decision denying unemployment compensation to him.

The departmental decision was appealed and heard before a referee appointed by the board. Appellant appeared and testified in addition to the departmental officials. The referee upheld the department; the appeals board affirmed the referee’s decision, as did the superior court.

The appellant, age 27, in August 1967 applied for unemployment compensation benefits. He previously had been a sales manager for an office equipment concern for eight months at a salary and commission amounting to over $1,000 per month. He sought a sales job with comparable pay.

On December 18, 1967, he was notified by the department that he was ineligible to receive benefits because his personal appearance was such as to fender him unavailable for employment. Unemployment Insurance Code section 1253 provides that “An unemployed individual is eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits with respect to any week only if the director finds that: . . .

[287]

“(c) He was able to work and available for work for that week. . . .

“(e) He conducted a search for suitable work in accordance with specific and reasonable instructions of a public employment office.”

The burden is upon the claimant to prove that availability.

(Ash-down

State of California

(1955) 135 Cal.App.2d 291, 300 [287 P.2d 176].)

Although at inception of payment of unemployment compensation to him, appellant was described as “clean-cut” in his physical appearance, by the first week in December he grew a beard, described by some as straggly, and longer-than-usual hair. Despite a department instruction to appear at its office dressed in a manner appropriate for a job interview, appellant once appeared “dressed in a tee shirt, jeans and tennis shoes,” and another time appeared “in extremely casual attire, wearing a braided belt hanging from his side.” Before the referee he admitted he needed a haircut.

Spangler v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

AI Brief

DAVID, J.

More from California Court of Appeal

Related research

AI Brief