Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
In re Williamson
No. 94-631 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Feb. 12, 1996). ; Clearinghouse Number: 50726
Description
Appeals Tribunal Must Consider Whether Claimant’s Part-Time Selectman Duties Are a Qualifying Limitation Restricting His Availability for Work
Abstract
The New Hampshire Supreme Court has reversed the Department of
Employment Security’s decision that claimant was not
available for work and therefore disqualified from receiving
unemployment compensation. After being laid off from his job at a
floor-cleaning company, claimant applied for unemployment benefits.
He was found eligible for emergency benefits and referred for a job
interview. Claimant informed the prospective employer that he
preferred first- or third-shift work because his part-time
commitment as a town selectman required him to attend weekly town
meetings. Because of claimant refused to resign as selectman, he
was not offered a job. Finding that claimant was not available for
work, the department denied him benefits, and the appeals tribunal
affirmed. The court found that the appeals tribunal might not have
considered whether claimant’s selectman duties constituted a
qualifying limitation restricting the hours of his availability.
The tribunal’s decision appeared to apply a
total-availability standard rejected by the court’s prior
decisions concerning the "able and available" standard.
It reversed the tribunal’s decision and remanded to determine
(1) whether claimant had established a qualifying limitation for
the restrictions he imposed on his working hours and, if so, (2)
whether he could work substantially all hours and all shifts for
which there was a market for his services.
