Glick v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.

591 P.2d 24 (1979)

From our private database of 45,900+ case briefs, written and edited by humans—never with AI.

Glick v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd.

California Supreme Court
591 P.2d 24 (1979)

Facts

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.

Rule of Law

Issue

Holding and Reasoning (Tobriner, C.J.)

Dissent (Clark, 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 742,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Berkeley, and Northwestern—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students.

    Unlock this case briefRead our student testimonials
  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.

    Learn about our approachRead more about Quimbee

Here's why 742,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:

  • Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 45,900 briefs, keyed to 984 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 742,000 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
  • 45,900 briefs - keyed to 984 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