State appeals court overturns part of unemployment reform

The state Court of Appeals has overturned legislative attempts to further restrict the availability of unemployment checks to people who voluntarily quit their jobs.

In a Snohomish County case, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals in Seattle unanimously ruled Monday that the statute addressing the issue was unconstitutional because the title of the 2003 bill failed to reflect what was in the bill. A subsequent attempt by the Legislature to rectify that problem last year was unconstitutional for the same reason, Judge Mary Kay Becker wrote.

"We're disappointed in the decision," said Janelle Guthrie, spokeswoman for Attorney General Rob McKenna, whose office represents the Employment Security Department. "We're in the process of reviewing its implications and our options."

The court ordered the case back to Employment Security to determine whether Kusum Batey, who quit her job as an advocate for the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women, had good cause for quitting under the law as it existed in 2002.

The 2002 laws outlined four specific situations that qualified workers to quit and still receive benefits. In addition, the Employment Security Department could determine that good cause existed even if the reason for quitting was not listed under the four criteria.

During a special session in 2003, lawmakers passed a sweeping unemployment-insurance reform measure. Lawmakers added six more "good cause" reasons to the statute, but removed the discretionary review by the Employment Security Department, a move backed by businesses but opposed by labor groups.

Batey, who quit in 2005, sued when the department denied her application for benefits because her reasons for quitting did not fit within the 10 "good cause quit" categories under the law. She argued that the 2003 bill removing the language for discretionary review was unconstitutional because the title of the bill did not address the "good cause quit" aspect of the bill.

The department argued that a bill passed by the Legislature last year remedied the title issue, but Becker said that was not the case.

The title of last year's bill was: "An act relating to making adjustments in the unemployment insurance system to enhance benefit and tax equity; re-enacting RCW 50.20.050; and creating a new section."

It re-enacted, retroactively, the "good cause quit" section of the 2003 bill. But Becker noted that it was vastly different from the bill that was introduced, which had simply called for an extended deadline for a task force.

"The title's reference to 'benefit and tax equity' disguised the fact that the bill no longer had anything to do with the special committee study on benefit equity, and had become instead a last-minute vehicle to change the good cause criteria for voluntary quits," she wrote.

David Groves, spokesman for the Washington State Labor Council, said he was thrilled with the court's decision and hoped it would send a message to lawmakers.

"We hope that it means that they will take a serious look at the impact of the changes they made in 2003," he said.

Gary Chandler, vice president of governmental affairs for the Association of Washington Business, said the group was still reviewing the order. Batey's attorney, Deborah Maranville, did not immediately return a call seeking comment.