## Facts

- Roy Wood, Jr. worked for more than nine years in two jobs: (1) full-time as a commissioned officer with the New Orleans Police Department (NOPD) and (2) part-time (about 12 hours per week) as a security guard at Rue Parc Fontaine Apartments.
- The apartment complex’s management agent (Mustang Management) staffed the security detail only with off-duty commissioned police officers because commissioned officers were allowed to carry a firearm on private property.
- In late September 1991, NOPD made changes that adversely affected Wood’s work schedule and hours.
- As a result, Wood resigned his NOPD commission.
- After Wood resigned his commission, Sgt. Bass (Wood’s NOPD supervisor and the coordinator of the apartment security detail) told Wood that he could no longer work the apartment security job because he was no longer a commissioned officer and would have to be replaced on the detail.
- Wood applied for unemployment compensation after losing the part-time security work.
- Although Wood did not testify that he quit the apartment job, the Louisiana Department of Employment Security treated the separation as a voluntary quit from the part-time position and disqualified him under La. R.S. 23:1601(1)(a).
- An administrative law judge affirmed the disqualification under La. R.S. 23:1601(1)(a), and the Board of Review affirmed without comment.
- On judicial review, the district court affirmed the disqualification, acknowledging the separation looked more like a termination for lack of an important job qualification, but still applying La. R.S. 23:1601(1)(a) on the rationale that the apartment employer could enforce reasonable job qualifications.
- The record included separate proceedings in which the Department had already ruled that Wood’s resignation from NOPD was for good cause and not disqualifying; the dispute in this appeal concerned only the loss of the part-time apartment security job.

## Issues

1. Whether Wood’s separation from the part-time apartment security job should be classified as a voluntary quit under La. R.S. 23:1601(1)(a) or as an employer-initiated discharge (including constructive discharge) based on loss of an employment qualification.
2. If the separation was a discharge for lack of qualification, whether Wood could be denied benefits absent proof of “misconduct” under La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a).

## Decision

- The Court of Appeal, Second Circuit reversed the district court and the administrative rulings and rendered judgment in Wood’s favor.
- The court held that Wood did not voluntarily leave the apartment security job within the meaning of La. R.S. 23:1601(1)(a); the separation occurred because the employer, through the detail coordinator, told him he could no longer work without commissioned-officer status.
- The court treated the separation as a discharge (or constructive discharge) due to inability to meet an employer-required qualification, not as a voluntary quit.
- Because the separation was properly analyzed as a discharge, disqualification depended on proof of misconduct under La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a).
- There was no showing of misconduct connected with the part-time job; therefore, Wood was not disqualified from unemployment compensation based on the loss of that employment.

## Legal Principles

- For unemployment compensation, the characterization of a separation turns on who initiated the end of employment; when the employer directs that the employee can no longer work, the separation is not a voluntary quit.
- An employer may set and enforce reasonable, lawful job qualifications, but an employee’s failure to meet such a qualification is generally treated as inability or lack of qualification rather than misconduct.
- When a separation is a discharge, the misconduct standard in La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a) applies; the agency/employer must show disqualifying misconduct connected with the employment.
- A discharge based on inability to meet an employment qualification, without blameworthy workplace behavior, does not establish misconduct for purposes of disqualifying an otherwise eligible claimant.

## Conclusion

Wood lost his part-time apartment security position only because he resigned his commissioned status and was then told he could no longer work the security detail; the appellate court held this was an employer-initiated discharge for lack of qualification rather than a voluntary quit, and because the record did not show misconduct under La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a), he remained eligible for unemployment benefits.


Wood v. Louisiana Dept. of Employment Security, 632 So. 2d 899 (1994)