Where a claimant (1) resigned from his full-time employment with the appellant, (2) began working for a different employer, and (3) was later terminated from his new position, it was not error for the appellant to be held responsible for paying the claimant’s unemployment benefits, as the appellant was the claimant’s most recent employer based on the language of the Employment Security Act.
Affirmed.
“The J. Arthur Trudeau Memorial Center (‘Appellant’, or ‘Trudeau Center’) has filed this appeal challenging the Board of Review’s June 9, 2020 decision in this matter. …
“On February 15, 2019, Roger Kelly (‘Claimant’ or ‘Employee’) resigned his full-time employment with the Trudeau Center. … Thereafter, Mr. Kelly began work at West Bay Residential. … After working at West Bay for two months, Mr. Kelly was terminated on April 20, 2019 and subsequently applied for unemployment benefits on May 9, 2019. … The Trudeau Center filed employer protest charges arguing that: (1) Mr. Kelly voluntarily left his employment; and (2) the Trudeau Center is not the chargeable employer of his claim for unemployment benefits. …
“The within appeal raises several issues for the Court’s consideration.
“The first issue is whether the BOR properly applied the plain language of Section 28-44-17 to determine that the reason for Claimant’s separation from the Trudeau Center was not determinative of his eligibility for employment benefits.
“Next, the Court must consider whether the BOR properly applied...
exporters knowingly avoided U. S. duties on Asian and European flat-rolled steel products, agreeing to pay $19 million to resolve the dispute, according to a press release issued Wednesday by the U...