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 Tennis
No. 2001-0003 (N.H. Sup. Ct. Jan. 27, 2003) ; Clearinghouse Number: 55033
Description
Applicant Need Not Perform Services in Same Quarter as When Receiving Income to Meet Earnings Requirement for Benefits
Abstract
The New Hampshire Supreme Court held that the decision of the state
department of employment security to require applicant to have
performed services in the same quarter when he received income in
order to meet the earnings requirement for unemployment benefits
was inconsistent with the state unemployment statutes. The court
reversed department’s decision that applicant was ineligible
for unemployment benefits. Although plaintiff applicant did not
perform services for employer after March 31, 2000, he received his
regular paychecks and benefits until June 2, 2000, and an
additional severance package. Department denied applicant’s
initial application for unemployment benefits after prorating his
severance pay over the forty-two weeks following March 31, 2000,
and determining that he was not “totally unemployed”
because he had received “wages” from his employer.
Applicant received unemployment benefits from January 20 to March
31, 2001, but department denied his reapplication for benefits past
that date. Department found that the severance payments that
applicant received in the second quarter of 2000 were not
“earned” within the meaning of the statute because
applicant did not perform services during that quarter and thus did
not meet the two-quarter earnings requirement. Applicant argued to
the state supreme court that department’s ruling had no basis
in the law, involved improper fact-finding, constituted an
unwritten rule in contravention of the state Administrative
Procedures Act, and violated due process. Agreeing that department
lacked statutory authority to impose this condition on the earnings
requirement, the court found that the state statutes did not limit
earnings to income that employee received in the same quarter when
the employee performed services; nor could such a requirement be
inferred. Date of receipt of income, not date of services
performed, was the proper method for determining earnings.
