Rucker v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA3

Filed 4/22/14 Rucker v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. CA3 NOT TO BE PUBLISHED California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA THIRD APPELLATE DISTRICT (San Joaquin)

XENIA RUCKER, C072303

Plaintiff and Appellant, (Super. Ct. No. 39-2012- 00280238-CU-WM-STK) v.

CALIFORNIA UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD,

Defendant and Respondent.

Xenia Rucker, appearing pro se, filed a petition for writ of administrative mandamus in the superior court to overturn a decision of the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the Board) denying her claim for unemployment compensation benefits. The superior court denied the petition; Rucker appeals from the superior court’s judgment denying the requested relief.1 We affirm.

1 The Board declined to file a respondent’s brief.

1

BACKGROUND Rucker worked as a communications operator for AT&T for 10 years. In December 2008, she accepted a separation package from AT&T and stopped working. In January 2010, Rucker applied for unemployment insurance benefits. The Employment Development Department (EDD) concluded that Rucker was ineligible for unemployment benefits. Rucker challenged EDD’s findings, and an administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing at which Rucker appeared. The ALJ determined that EDD correctly concluded that Rucker was disqualified from receiving benefits because she voluntarily left her most recent employment without good cause within the meaning of Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256.2 3 The ALJ reasoned that neither quitting a job to attend school, nor accepting an employer’s financial incentives to retire, absent an immediate threat of layoff, constituted good cause for voluntarily leaving one’s employment within the meaning of the statute. A copy of the ALJ’s decision was mailed to Rucker on May 17, 2010, stating that the decision would be final unless appealed within 20 days. Rucker appealed the ALJ’s decision to the Board on September 17, 2011, more than a year after the decision had been rendered. She stated she wished “to submit new and additional evidence” to demonstrate her eligibility for unemployment insurance benefits. Good cause exists for her prior failure to produce the “ ‘Untimely