This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The claimant, a program director at a television station, was laid off on May 26, 1988, after four and a half years of employment. She subsequently took part-time work at a restaurant but left after a few shifts to focus on finding full-time employment in her field of telecommunications. She applied for unemployment benefits, listing her former television station employer, and received weekly benefits. However, the Employment Security Division (ESD) later disqualified her from benefits, arguing her voluntary departure from the part-time job disqualified her under the Unemployment Compensation Law.
Procedural History
- District Court of Bernalillo County: Reversed the ESD's decision, finding that the claimant's termination of part-time employment did not disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits. The court ordered the claimant to reimburse ESD $204.00 for overpayment.
Parties' Submissions
- Appellant (Employment Security Division): Argued that the term "employment" in Section §51-1-7(A) of the Unemployment Compensation Law includes all employment, including part-time work, and that the claimant's voluntary departure from her part-time job disqualified her from receiving benefits.
- Appellee (Claimant): Contended that the term "employment" should only refer to base-period employment, as benefits are determined based on base-period wages. She argued that her part-time job was irrelevant to her eligibility for benefits.
Legal Issues
- Did the claimant's voluntary termination of part-time employment disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits under Section §51-1-7(A) of the Unemployment Compensation Law?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's decision, holding that the claimant's termination of part-time employment did not disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits.
Reasons
Per Sosa, Chief Justice (Montgomery and Wilson JJ. concurring):
The court interpreted the term "employment" in Section §51-1-7(A) to refer only to base-period employment, as benefits are calculated based on wages earned during the base period. The court found the statute ambiguous regarding the claimant's situation and resolved the ambiguity in a manner consistent with the legislature's intent to support workers who become unemployed through no fault of their own. The court emphasized that adopting ESD's interpretation would lead to an unjust and unreasonable application of the law, contrary to its purpose. The judgment of the district court was affirmed in its entirety.