Employee who Resigned Seven Months Before Wife Started a Job in Europe Did Not Qualify for Unemployment Benefits under the ?Quit to Follow? Provision

Jun 12, 2014

Campbell was a teacher at the University Place School District.? ?His wife obtained a Fullbright grant for four months in Finland. ?He requested? a six-month? leave of ?absence which was denied and then requested a leave for the entire school year, which was also denied.?? He resigned because he believed professionalism required that he resign prior to the start of the new school year, rather than mid-year. Campbell applied for unemployment benefits for the months between his resignation in June 2010 and his family’s planned departure in ?February ?2011.???? His ?request ?was ?denied because the Department of Employment Security (Department) determined that Campbell did not qualify ?for ?benefits ?as ?claimed ?under ?RCW 50.20.050(2)(b)(iii)(“quit to follow” provision), which? requires? the ?unemployment? claimant? to stay in his or her position for “as long as reasonable” before quitting to relocate for a spouse or domestic partner. ?The Superior Court reversed the agency decision, the Department appealed, and the Court of Appeals reversed the Superior Court reinstating the decision by the Department.? The Supreme Court affirmed. The Court acknowledged that the ?quit to follow? provision is an important part of our unemployment compensation scheme. ?It promotes family cohesion by erasing the choice between maintaining a ?second ?income and ?maintaining? a family by joining a spouse or domestic partner in a new labor market.??? Citing Br. of Amicus Curiae Wash. Emp’t Lawyers’ Ass’n (Br. of WELA) at 8-

  1. Nevertheless, the Court ruled that Campbell?s decision to ?quit ?at ?the close? of ?the? school ?year ?cannot satisfy the requirement that he remain employed as long as reasonable prior to the move.? ?There is no evidentiary support on this record for Campbell’s contention that it was reasonable for him, ?as ?a? matter? of ?professional ?courtesy, ?to separate? from ?employment ?seven ?months ?before the move to Finland.?

Campbell v. Employment Security Department of State of Washington, ???????Wn.2d ???????, 326 P.3d 713 (6/12/14)