## Facts

- The Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act provides benefits to individuals who are involuntarily unemployed, subject to disqualification provisions.
- Abigail Arroyo worked as a cashier at Wally’s Kosher Deli.
- On June 14, 1996, about eight months into her pregnancy, Arroyo experienced complications, was hospitalized, and gave birth to a stillborn child.
- Arroyo was discharged from the hospital on June 18, 1996, with her doctor’s order not to work for six weeks.
- Arroyo’s mother called the deli and told the owners that Arroyo was ill.
- Department interview notes reflected that Arroyo reported calling one of the owners, Steve Brin, on June 15 and June 24 and stated she kept in contact during her absence, including informing the deli of her doctor’s instruction.
- The deli objected to Arroyo’s benefits claim, asserting it did not hear from her for almost 40 days and that it treated her as having “terminated voluntarily” due to being a “no show” for more than a month.
- On July 23, 1996, after the six-week period, Arroyo went to the deli to pick up her paycheck and tell the owners she could return to work.
- Brin told Arroyo she was fired.
- Arroyo applied for unemployment benefits; the claims adjudicator found her eligible for a short period on the ground that she had not engaged in misconduct.
- After further agency proceedings, a referee found Arroyo had notified the deli of her condition and had been discharged for reasons other than misconduct.
- The Board of Review reversed, concluding Arroyo left work voluntarily without good cause under § 601(A), and the circuit court affirmed that decision.
- Arroyo appealed, arguing the record showed a discharge rather than a voluntary quit and that the Board used the wrong statutory framework.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Review’s finding that Arroyo voluntarily left work without good cause under § 601(A) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether, given the record evidence that Arroyo was told she was fired, the claim had to be evaluated (if disqualifying at all) under § 602(A) (discharge for misconduct) rather than § 601(A) (voluntary leaving).

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the circuit court judgment affirming the Board’s denial of benefits.
- The court held the record demonstrated Arroyo was fired, making the Board’s contrary finding (voluntary leaving under § 601(A)) against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The court remanded for a new hearing to determine whether Arroyo was discharged for “misconduct” within the meaning of § 602(A), which could still disqualify her from benefits.

## Legal Principles

- An administrative agency’s factual findings are reversed when they are against the manifest weight of the evidence, meaning the opposite conclusion is clearly apparent from the record.
- Under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, eligibility analysis depends on correctly identifying the nature of the separation: voluntary leaving under § 601(A) versus discharge under § 602(A).
- Section 601(A) disqualifies a claimant who voluntarily leaves work without good cause, but it does not apply where the claimant is medically unable to work and provides notice to the employer.
- Section 602(A) disqualifies a claimant who is discharged for misconduct, including a willful violation of an employer’s reasonable rule or policy.
- An employer’s after-the-fact characterization of an absence as “job abandonment” or a “voluntary termination” does not control when the record shows the employer ended the employment relationship by firing the claimant.
- When the record shows discharge, the agency must address disqualification, if any, under the misconduct standard and make findings relevant to § 602(A).

## Conclusion

Because the record showed Arroyo returned after her doctor-ordered absence and was told she was fired, the Board’s treatment of the separation as a voluntary quit under § 601(A) could not stand; the judgment was reversed and the case remanded for a new hearing limited to whether the discharge was for disqualifying misconduct under § 602(A).


Arroyo v. Doherty, 695 N.E.2d 1350, 296 Ill. App. 3d 839, 231 Ill. Dec. 231 (1998)