Those who quit jobs must show "good cause" for benefits

OLYMPIA -- People who voluntarily quit their jobs will still have to prove that good cause existed under stricter criteria to receive unemployment benefits, according to a state Attorney General's Office memo released Monday.

Earlier this month, it appeared the state Court of Appeals had overturned legislative attempts to address the issue. But in a memo providing legal advice to the Employment Security Department, Senior Assistant Attorney General Nancy Krier and Assistant Attorney General Erika Uhl wrote that another measure that passed last year was not affected by the ruling.

"It's good news," said Sheryl Hutchison, spokeswoman for the Employment Security Department. "It gives us certainty in terms of the cases in front of us right now."

On March 12, a three-judge panel of the Court of Appeals in Seattle unanimously ruled that a statute addressing the issue was unconstitutional because the title of a 2003 bill failed to reflect what was in the bill. A subsequent attempt by the Legislature to rectify that problem last year was ruled unconstitutional for the same reason.

But Krier and Uhl said language in yet another bill dealing with unemployment benefits for seasonal workers also amended the statute dealing with voluntary resignations, but was not addressed by the case before the court.

"Therefore, that session law is still good law," they wrote.

The memo, which was provided as legal advice and is not an official opinion from the attorney general, said that at a minimum, the court's decision "puts no legal cloud" to claims on or after June 7, 2006, when the third measure took effect.

The case that brought this issue to the courts was that of Kusum Batey, who quit her job as an advocate for the Snohomish County Center for Battered Women, and argued she had good cause for quitting under the law as it existed in 2002.

The 2002 law 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.

Batey, who quit her job 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.

The court ordered the case back to Employment Security to determine whether Batey had good cause for quitting under the law as it existed in 2002.

Hutchison said that for cases before that June 7, 2006, date -- including Batey's case -- the court ruling would still stand, though she said her office is deciding whether to appeal.

David Groves, spokesman for the Washington State Labor Council, said he disagreed with the Attorney General's Office.

"The intent of the court was very clear, and that was to say that this good-cause language that was imposed is unconstitutional," he said. "For them to point to the fact that some of this language was duplicated in a bill on a totally different subject and hang their hat on that is totally questionable."