Last month, the Franklin County Court of Appeals affirmed the denial of unemployment compensation to a claimant who restricted her 2021 job search to small and remote classrooms in order to avoid being exposed to COVID while she was unvaccinated and she claimed her husband’s health made him more susceptible. Yang v. Ohio Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2022-Ohio-4480. The claimant had not preserved any medical excuses that she might have been able to raise by not raising them with ODJFS or the Unemployment Review Commission and had admitted that she had restricted her job search to small classroom or remote settings, even though she had applied for two jobs each week. She had even refused to explain why she was still unvaccinated. The Court never mentions why ODFJS realized that she had been restricting her job search and began denying her application, but she apparently admitted during the review hearing that she had failed to apply for positions in larger schools or classrooms because of her vaccination status and fear of being exposed to COVID.
According to the Court’s opinion, she had been laid off
shortly after the COVID pandemic began and was told that she would not be hired
for the following 2020-21 school year.
Her initial March 2021 unemployment compensation application was approved,
but in May 2021, the Director denied all further applications on the grounds
that she was unavailable for suitable work between March and August 2021. (She was apparently rehired by Dublin Schools –
where she had been assigned by her employer since 2013—in August 2021). After an evidentiary hearing on her appeal,
the Commission affirmed the denial of her benefits on the grounds that she was not
able and available for work as required by Ohio Revised Code § 4141.29(A)(4)
when she restricted her job search to small and remote classroom settings. On appeal, the common pleas court affirmed
and the Court of Appeals likewise affirmed.
R.C. 4141.29(A)(4) provides in relevant part that only involuntarily unemployed claimants shall receive benefits and will not receive such benefits unless he or she:
(4)(a)(i) Is able to work and available for suitable work and, except as provided in division (A)(4)(a)(ii) or (iii) of this section [when the claimant’s employer expects to recall the claimant within a certain number of weeks], is actively seeking suitable work either in a locality in which the individual has earned wages subject to this chapter during the individual's base period, or if the individual leaves that locality, then in a locality where suitable work normally is performed.
Courts are required to affirm the Commission under Ohio law if there is
any evidence in the evidentiary record to support its determination. Her admission that she would have rejected
job offers from large high and middle schools was found to justify the denial of her
unemployment compensation application in the absence of valid legal arguments
for her unsupported medical explanation. In short, she was not making herself available for suitable work by restricting her job search.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert
you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does
not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to
different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice.
Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have
any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain
an employment attorney.
