One of the general understandings about how a worker may disqualify themselves from unemployment insurance benefit (UI) eligibility is if he or she voluntarily quits. However, there is an exception to this general rule (MCL 421.29(5)) that, somewhat counterintuitively, states that if an employee voluntarily leaves employment at one employer to take a job at another employer, the worker is not disqualified from getting UI. On the other hand, it makes sense that if a worker leaves one employer for another and that second job does not work out, resulting in an involuntary termination (a qualifying event), the employee should still have the UI benefit security available to them, right?

In a case decided by the Michigan Appeals Court in September, the Court overruled both the Administrative Law Judge and the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission’s decision denying benefits to a UI Claimant that resigned from her employment to take a job with another employer. In this case the Claimant-worker resigned from her employer to take a job at another employer. She provided her employer a resignation letter dated July 20, 2016 with a resignation date of August 5^th.  Despite her effective date of resignation, her last day of work and being in the office was August 2^nd. Over the period of two days between August 2^nd and August 4^th she received a second job offer that she took instead of the employer she had planned to work for originally. Claimant worked for the employer that made the second offer from September 2016 through her discharge in January of 2017.

Upon discharge she applied for unemployment compensation benefits. However, through a series of decisions and appeals the Unemployment Insurance Agency denied her benefits under MCL 421.29 (1) (a) because she had voluntarily left her employment at her previous employer, one of the Defendants in this case. Why did her original employer, the one she had voluntarily resigned become involved in a UI case with her? Because if she had a valid UI claim, their account would be charged for some of her UI benefits.

This adverse decision the Claimant challenged fell back to exactly what and when her last day of employment was with the employer she had resigned from effective August 5^th.  Because she withdrew her acceptance of employment with the first company she had originally accepted a new job with and subsequently over the two days between when she last worked (August 2^nd) and when her technical last day of employment was (August 4^th), she effectively took another job with another employer. This was the one she was fired from in January 2017 and who would be the first employer that would be responsible for the UI claim.

The Michigan Appeals Court recognized, under the exception (MCL 421.29 (5)) to the MCL 421.29 (1) (a) rule that states a person is not disqualified from UI benefits if they voluntarily leave for another full-time job.

Who would care whether or not a worker left an employer for another job and subsequently took another job with a completely different employer? It’s still another job, and it’s still a voluntary resignation. The original employer should be off the hook for future UI claims, right?

No, said the Appeals Court. In this case, because she was subsequently employed full-time, the second employment that started immediately created the qualification bridge to the exception to rule MCL 421.29 (1) (a) and the requirement that the original employer have a UI claim against it due to the Claimant’s employment with them for the previous time working for her original employer.

Additional ASE Resources
Who thought UI could be so complicated? Well, if you are interested enough in unemployment compensation law to read through this article you may be interested in learning more about Michigan unemployment law in general: 

Unemployment Compensation Overview -  This class is scheduled for Thursday, October 31, 2019 in Livonia and provides participants information on unemployment law and benefit claim administration and successfully challenging claims. For more information on this class, click here.

 Source: Kathryn Macewen Conti v Domestic Violence Project, Inc. and Unemployment Insurance Agency (unpublished) 9/24/2019)