Maitland v. Employment Development Department

Opinion

ROUSE, Acting P. J. This appeal involves the question whether an individual is eligible for unemployment benefits if she voluntarily terminates her employment after (1) receiving a job reclassification and reduction in salary, and (2) being advised by her supervisor that she would be eligible for unemployment insurance benefits if she quit her job.

The facts are undisputed: Plaintiff Elfrieda Maitland quit her job with Coherent, Inc., on February 1, 1980, having been employed by [333]that company for three months. Initially, Mrs. Maitland was hired by Coherent as an “A” quality assurance inspector at a pay rate of $6.50 an hour. Upon the completion of her three-month probationary period, Mrs. Maitland’s supervisor informed her that she was to be reclassified as a “B” inspector and that her pay rate would be reduced from $6.50 to $6 an hour. Mrs. Maitland then inquired whether she would be eligible for unemployment benefits if she quit her job, and her supervisor assured her that she would.

Mrs. Maitland voluntarily terminated her employment on February 1, 1980, and filed an application for unemployment insurance benefits on February 5, 1980. Her application was denied by defendant Employment Development Department (department) on February 25, 1980, and plaintiff then obtained a hearing before an administrative law judge on March 31, 980. That judge upheld the department’s decision which held that plaintiff was ineligible for unemployment insurance benefits because she had quit her job without good cause. Plaintiff appealed to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (board), and in a decision mailed on July 3, 1980, the decision of the administrative law judge was affirmed.

Plaintiff then commenced this action against the department and the board, seeking a writ of mandate to compel the payment of unemployment insurance benefits. Based upon its review of the administrative record, the trial court found that the pay reduction from $6.50 to $6 an hour would have constituted a hardship to plaintiff and her family; also, that plaintiff was informed by a representative of her employer that if she quit her job due to this cut in pay, she would be entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits. The court concluded that plaintiff had cause to leave her employment “based on her cut in pay and the incorrect information given to her by her employer.” In view of this conclusion, the court expressly refrained from determining whether defendants were estopped from denying plaintiffs application for unemployment insurance benefits. The court granted plaintiff a peremptory writ of mandate compelling defendants to set aside and reconsider their decision to deny plaintiff unemployment insurance benefits. Department and the board had each appealed from this decision.