Arroyo v. Doherty

695 N.E.2d 1350, 296 Ill. App. 3d 839, 231 Ill. Dec. 231 (1998)

From our private database of 46,300+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Arroyo v. Doherty

Illinois Appellate Court
695 N.E.2d 1350, 296 Ill. App. 3d 839, 231 Ill. Dec. 231 (1998)

Facts

The Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (the act) granted unemployment compensation to individuals who were involuntarily unemployed. Under § 601(A) of the act, an individual was ineligible for unemployment benefits if the individual left work voluntarily without good cause. Section 601(A), however, did not apply if an individual who left work voluntarily was deemed physically unable to work by a doctor and notified the employer of this fact. Under § 602(A), an individual was ineligible for benefits if discharged for misconduct, including a willful violation of an employer’s reasonable rule or policy. Abigail Arroyo (plaintiff) was employed as a deli cashier. On June 14, 1996, Arroyo experienced pregnancy complications and was hospitalized. Arroyo’s mother called the deli and informed the owners that Arroyo was unwell. When Arroyo went to the deli on July 23, 1996, to get her most recent paycheck and inform the deli owners that she could return to work, the owners fired Arroyo. Arroyo applied for unemployment compensation. The deli objected, claiming that Arroyo failed to provide notification of the reason and expected timeline of her absence and was voluntarily discharged. Arroyo contended that she maintained contact with the deli owners during her absence and notified them that Arroyo’s doctor advised her not to work for six weeks. A referee concluded that Arroyo had notified the deli of her condition and was involuntarily discharged for reasons other than misconduct. Consequently, Arroyo was not disqualified from receiving benefits under § 602(A). The deli appealed, arguing that Arroyo voluntarily left the job without notice. The board of review (the board) reversed, disagreeing that Arroyo gave proper notice and concluding that Arroyo voluntarily left her job without good cause under § 601(A). Arroyo filed for administrative review with the court. The court affirmed the board’s decision. Arroyo appealed.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Wolfson, J.)

What to do next…

  1. Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.

    You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 815,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

  2. Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.

    Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students.

Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
  • The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
  • Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
  • Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
  • Reliable - written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students
  • The right length and amount of information - includes the facts, issue, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents
  • Access in your class - works on your mobile and tablet
  • 46,300 briefs - keyed to 988 casebooks
  • Uniform format for every case brief
  • Written in plain English - not in legalese and not just repeating the court's language
  • Massive library of related video lessons - and practice questions
  • Top-notch customer support

Access this case brief for FREE

With a 7-day free trial membership