Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

PHOEBE H. WARREN v. BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION

JANUARY 30, 1985

PHOEBE H. WARREN
v.
BOARD OF REVIEW OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION



BEFORE WALKER, HAWKINS AND ROBERTSON

HAWKINS, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:

This is an appeal from an order of the Circuit Court of Lee County affirming the denial of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission of unemployment benefits to Phoebe H. Warren.

Before us is the constitutionality of a statute which prohibits payment of unemployment benefits to a wife who leaves the state to accompany her husband: Miss. Code Ann. 71-5-513(A)(1)(a) (Supp. 1983).

 Mrs. Warren was a teacher in the public schools of Lee County. Her husband went into active duty with the United States Army, and he and Mrs. Warren moved

 to Florida at the end of the 1982-1983 school term. Mrs. Warren had previously signed an employment contract for the subsequent school term.

 The referee denied the benefits based upon this section, the Board of Review of the Commission affirmed, and upon appeal to the Circuit Court of Lee County, the Commission denial was affirmed.

 The Commission and circuit judge were of the opinion this statute prohibited benefits.

 Miss. Code Ann. 71-5-513 (A)(1)(a) (Supp. 1984), also Chapter 364, Laws of 1983 provides as follows:

 71-5-513. A. An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

 (1) (a) For the week, or fraction thereof, which immediately follows the day on which he left work voluntarily without good cause, if so found by the commission, . . . provided that marital, filial, and domestic circumstances and obligations shall not be deemed good cause within the meaning of this subsection. Pregnancy shall not be deemed to be a marital, filial or domestic circumstance for the purpose of this subsection.

 LAW

 Mrs. Warren does not dispute that under the statute she is denied benefits. Her sole argument is that this statute is unconstitutional. While her argument is interesting, and we agree that there is a division of authority on this question in other jurisdictions, we are persuaded that the act is constitutional.

 In Albritton v. City of Winona, 181 Miss. 75 at 96, 178 So. 799 (1938), we stated:

 5. In determining whether an act of the Legislature violates the Constitution, the courts are without the right to substitute their judgment for that of the Legislature as to the wisdom and policy of the act and must enforce it, unless it ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.