Glick v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.

Enid Ballantyne worked from 1968 to 1975 before losing her job. During that time, Ballantyne worked full-time for the first two years and then worked several different jobs with only part-time hours because she was caring for her three children. After Ballantyne and her husband separated, she started college on a full-time basis while still working part-time at a movie theater, for example. When Ballantyne lost her job in March 1975, she received unemployment compensation. Around six months later, Ballantyne began attending law school. Ballantyne’s schedule in law school required her attendance in class five days a week at various hours, with four hours committed to studying each day. An employment office provided Ballantyne with a written questionnaire that asked whether she would accept employment that conflicted with the hours that she was attending classes. When Ballantyne answered in the negative, the California Employment Development Department (the department) determined that Ballantyne was not available for employment and, therefore, was not eligible to continue receiving unemployment benefits. Ballantyne filed an administrative appeal and testified that she was working for two hours per week as a tutor, she was about to begin working a job on the weekends, she sought work in no particular field, and she had not restricted her search for employment to positions available at night or on the weekends. There was testimony that the job market in the area was very small, no matter what type of work Ballantyne sought. The administrative-law judge upheld the denial, ruling that Ballantyne limited the times she was available for employment to nights and weekends and, therefore, had substantially excluded herself from the job market. The administrative-law judge determined that Ballantyne was not available for work as required by the unemployment code, which provided that an unemployed person could only receive unemployment benefits for a week in which the person was both able and available for work. On appeal, the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (the board) (defendant) reversed, and a superior court upheld the board. The director of the department, Marvin Glick (plaintiff), sought review.