Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance


Subject: John Rinehard v. Martin Trucking Co. and LIRC, Case 07 CV 349 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Monroe Co., April 28, 2008)

Digest Codes: VL 1054.01  VL 1059.201

Following a work-related back injury and concomitant absence from work, the employee returned to work with medical restrictions on the hours he could work and the lifting he could do. These factors caused a reduction of as much as 50 % in the employee’s gross pay. The employee also pursued a worker’s compensation claim. The parties agreed at some point to settle the worker’s compensation claim, and one part of the settlement was that the employee would voluntarily terminate his employment with the employer. In affirming the appeal tribunal decision finding the employee ineligible for benefits, the commission reasoned that the reduction in the employee’s pay was due to the employee’s injury and not to employer fault; the employee’s quit thus was not with good cause attributable to the employer under Wis. Stat. § 108.04(7)(b), and no other exceptions to the 108.04(7)(a) disqualification applied.

Held: AFFIRMED. First, the court gave great weight deference to the commission’s conclusions of law. Second, it agreed with the commission that the employer was not at fault for the decrease in the employee’s wages. The court also rejected the employee’s argument, raised for the first time in his reply brief to the circuit court, that the settlement agreement itself constituted good cause attributable to the employer for the employee’s quit. The court reasoned that the employee was not obligated to sign the agreement, and there was no indication he would lose his job if he did not sign it and instead continued to pursue his worker’s compensation claim. The court also rejected, finally, the employee’s claim that his quit fell within the medical necessity exception of 108.04(7)(c). The employee was not unable to perform his work, he simply could not perform it for more than four hours in an eight-hour day, and that fact did not require him to quit the employment.

[LIRC decision]


Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

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