by Paul
(Astoria, NY)
I know that in order to collect unemployment benefits in a quit situation, one must make a reasonable effort to try to preserve one’s employment prior to quitting. But is there any situation in which mitigating factors may be deemed to have prevented a worker from fulfilling this responsibility?
Might a worker be able to say he did not think trying to preserve his job prior to quitting would have been an effective course of action? For instance, if a change in work conditions/ situations was presented to him as final and iron-clad.
If you know of any cases (or relevant resources)that help in showing a claimant’s burden of trying to preserve his job is sometimes mitigated, please inform me. (NYS unemployment, by the way).
Hi Paul, yes it is possible and sometimes statutes even address this, but as far as searching for specific case law for examples of what might be mitigating circumstances that circumvent the “usual” requirement to preserve you should go to the NY Interpretive Index.
I can think of a few .. like being asked to do something illegal, unsafe, maybe being “physically attacked or even feeling physical intimidated.
It basically amounts to circumstances that force the quit .. or circumstances that rise to a level that when the “reasonable person standard” is applied .. they would also quit.