STATE OF WISCONSIN
LABOR AND INDUSTRY REVIEW COMMISSION
P O BOX 8126, MADISON, WI 53708-8126 (608/266-9850)

IN RE J. DOE, 02006183WU

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DECISION
Hearing No. 02006183WU


An administrative law judge (ALJ) for the Division of Unemployment Insurance of the Department of Workforce Development issued a decision in this matter. A timely petition for review was filed.

The commission has considered the petition and the positions of the parties, and it has reviewed the evidence submitted to the ALJ. Based on its review, the commission agrees with the decision of the ALJ, and it adopts the findings and conclusion in that decision as its own.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is affirmed. Accordingly, the employee is ineligible for benefits beginning in week 29 of 2002, and until four weeks have elapsed since the end of the week of quitting and the employee has earned wages in covered employment performed after the week of quitting equaling at least four times the employee's weekly benefit rate which would have been paid had the quitting not occurred. The employee is required to repay the sum of $540.00 to the Unemployment Reserve Fund.

The department's determination is reversed in regards to its findings that the employer had conceded liability. Unemployment benefits paid to the employee for weeks 29, 30, and 31 of 2002 shall not be charged to the employer's account.


Dated and mailed April 11, 2003
In re J. Doe 02006183WU . usd : 164 : 1  VL 1016

/s/ David B. Falstad, Chairman

/s/ James A. Rutkowski, Commissioner

/s/ James T. Flynn, Commissioner

MEMORANDUM OPINION

In her petition for commission review the employee argues that her ex-boyfriend resided with her for about two weeks to a month while he was in between houses and that, therefore, her circumstances fall within the exception contained in Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(s). This argument fails. While the employee did testify at the hearing that her boyfriend stayed with her for a couple weeks, the statutory definition of "household member" -- a person who is currently or formerly residing in a place of abode with another person -- contemplates something beyond a two-week temporary stay. Moreover, the statute also requires the employee to demonstrate that she obtained a temporary restraining order or an injunction which has been or is reasonably likely to be violated. Although the employee attempted to obtain a restraining order against her former boyfriend, she was unsuccessful. Consequently, the employee did not satisfy the requirements for application of the statutory exception in question. The appeal tribunal decision is, accordingly, affirmed.

 


[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]


uploaded 2003/04/18