 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Department of Economic and Employment Development v. Taylor2/8/1996
In this case, we must decide whether the doctrine of "constructive voluntary quit" constitutes a ground for disqualification from unemployment benefits. We conclude that it does not apply as a bar to recovery of unemployment compensation.
Maria M. Taylor, appellee, applied for unemployment benefits after she was terminated from her employment with the County Commissioners of Frederick County, Maryland ("the County"). The County discharged Taylor because her Frederick County driving permit, which she needed in order to perform her job, was revoked after Taylor was convicted for driving while intoxicated. The Board of Appeals ("the Board") of the Department of Economic and Employment Development ("DEED"), appellant, held that Taylor's loss of her driver's permit constituted a breach of "a condition of continued employment . . . required by her employer ," and amounted to a "constructive voluntary quit," thus disqualifying her from receiving benefits under the "voluntarily leaving work" provision of the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Act, Md. Code (1991, 1995 Supp.), § 8-1001(a) of the Labor & Employment Article ("L.E.").
Taylor sought review of the Board's decision in the Circuit Court for Washington County. It reversed, holding that Taylor's actions did not amount to "voluntarily leaving work." The Board has now appealed to this Court; appellee did not submit a brief or appear at oral argument. The Board presents the following issues for our consideration:
I. Is the Board's determination that Appellee voluntarily left her employment by failing to meet a condition of the employment correct as a matter of law?
II. Is the Board's finding that Appellee voluntarily quit her employment supported by substantial evidence?
We hold that the Maryland Unemployment Insurance Act does not authorize the denial of benefits to a claimant on the ground of "constructive voluntary quitting." Therefore, we answer both questions in the negative and shall affirm the circuit court.
FACTUAL SUMMARY
Since 1986, Taylor was employed as a laborer for the County. Her job entailed manual work for the County Department of Parks and Recreation, including a variety of parks maintenance and custodial tasks. As part of her job, she was required to operate a County vehicle, both in the parks and on public roads. Therefore, as a condition of her employment, Taylor was obligated to have a valid Maryland driver's license and, in addition, a "Frederick County Employee Driving Permit." In order for employees to retain their driving permits, the County required that the employees have fewer than six points on their driving records.
In January 1989, Taylor was stopped on suspicion of driving while intoxicated. She refused to submit to a chemical test and her driving record indicates that she was not convicted of any alcohol-related offense. Nor was her license revoked, notwithstanding her refusal to take the chemical test. Instead, the Motor Vehicle Administration ("MVA") restricted her driver's license to employment and educational purposes. This apparently occurred because Earl A. Eyler, the County parks superintendent, wrote a letter to the MVA, dated February 17, 1989, informing it that Taylor needed to have a license to perform her job satisfactorily. Nevertheless, by March 1989, the County discovered that Taylor had accumulated four points on her driving record, due to prior speeding violations. Consequently, her County driving permit was placed on probationary status, and Taylor was warned that she would be terminated if her County driving permit were revoked.
Several years later, on February 2, 1993, Taylor was again arreste
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 Maryland DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|