## Facts

- Susan B. Lester worked for Purity Supermarketing, Inc. (Purity) for about 7½ years as a diverting coordinator at a regional office located about 1.3 miles from her home.
- At the time her job ended, Lester worked about 35 hours per week, earned $70,200 annually, and received benefits and quarterly bonuses.
- Purity eliminated Lester’s position for financial reasons and terminated her employment on May 23, 2001.
- Purity paid Lester severance from May 23, 2001 through September 23, 2001, totaling $25,800.
- On July 18, 2001, Purity offered Lester a new position similar to her prior job at another headquarters located in a Dominick’s supermarket about 30 miles from her home (about 30 minutes farther than her prior commute).
- The offered position paid the same annual salary ($70,200), provided comparable benefits, and offered two bonuses per year.
- The offered position required a 40-hour workweek and included supervisory responsibilities.
- Lester acknowledged she was capable of performing the offered job but refused it, citing dissatisfaction with the salary given the expected increase in workload, the longer commute, the supervisory duties, and the change from quarterly bonuses to two bonuses per year.
- After her severance period ended, Lester applied for unemployment benefits on November 6, 2001.
- The Illinois Department of Employment Security denied benefits under section 603 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, finding she refused suitable work without good cause.
- A referee and the Board of Review affirmed the denial, and the Circuit Court of Cook County affirmed on administrative review.
- Lester appealed to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District, Third Division.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board of Review correctly concluded that Purity’s offer was “suitable work” under section 603 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act.
2. Whether Lester had “good cause” to refuse the offered work under section 603.
3. Whether the Board’s factual findings were against the manifest weight of the evidence or whether the Board made an error of law.

## Decision

- The appellate court affirmed the circuit court’s judgment upholding the Board of Review’s decision.
- The court held the job Purity offered Lester was suitable work under section 603.
- The court held Lester refused the suitable work without good cause.
- The court found the Board’s factual findings were supported by the record and were not contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.

## Legal Principles

- Under section 603 of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/603), a claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if, without good cause, the claimant fails to accept available suitable work when offered.
- In determining whether work is “suitable,” the agency and reviewing court consider statutory and case-based factors such as the claimant’s prior training and experience, prior earnings, the character of the work, and the distance from the claimant’s residence.
- “Good cause” requires an objective justification—whether a reasonable person in the claimant’s position would refuse the work—not merely personal preference for prior conditions.
- On administrative review, the Board’s findings of fact are taken as prima facie true and correct and will be reversed only if they are against the manifest weight of the evidence; legal questions, including statutory interpretation, are reviewed de novo.
- A comparable offer from the same employer at the same annual salary with similar benefits may be found suitable even if it involves a longer commute, a 35-to-40-hour increase in weekly hours, added responsibility, or a less favorable (but non-guaranteed) bonus arrangement.

## Conclusion

The Appellate Court of Illinois affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits because Purity offered Lester a job that was similar to her prior work and maintained the same annual salary with comparable benefits, and the Board reasonably found that her objections—longer commute, increased hours and workload, supervisory duties, and reduced bonus frequency—did not amount to good cause to refuse suitable work under section 603.


Lester v. Department of Employment Security, 819 N.E.2d 1143 (2004)