This section contains the nature of the case and procedural background.

P worked as a diverting coordinator for Purity Supermarketing, Inc. (Purity), for 7 1/2 years. P worked out of a regional office located in a Kmart store 1.3 miles from her home. On May 23, 2001, her position was eliminated for financial reasons. Prior to her termination, she had taken maternity leave, but she returned to work in April 2001 and was working 35 hours per week at a salary of $ 70,200 per year. Between April and May 23, 2001, there was not enough work for P due to changes within the Kmart structure and her hours gradually diminished until she was only working three days per week at a lower salary. Purity gave her severance pay from May 23, 2001, through September 23, 2001, totaling $25,800. On July 18, 2001, Daniel Davis, director of partnership programs for Purity, offered P a position at Purity's other headquarters working out of a Dominick's supermarket, which was located 30 miles from her home. The offer included an annual salary of $70,200, plus benefits. P refused the position. P filed for unemployment insurance. P stated that, although she felt she was competent to fill the job offered to her, she refused it because the salary was insufficient, as her workload would have increased two to three times, required farther travel to and from work, required her to supervise staff, and did not include guaranteed quarterly bonuses. Karen McGrath, Purity's human resource representative, filed a response that the job offered to plaintiff was not substantially different from her former position, e.g., it was within 30 minutes of her old office, required 40 hours of work per week, paid $70,200 per year, plus two quarterly bonuses, and included insurance and all other benefits. McGrath stated that $50,000 to $60,000 per year was the standard salary for similar employment. The claims adjudicator denied P's claim for unemployment insurance pursuant to section 603 of the Act, finding that the work offered to plaintiff \was suitable and her refusal of work was without good cause. The adjudicator held that the salary was comparable to her former salary and was reasonable for prevailing wages in the industry and location. P filed a motion for reconsideration, arguing that the new position would have increased her work hours from 35 to at least 40 hours per week, required her to act as a manager, as she was told that she would be the 'lead person,' with one to two people working for her, her distance from work would have increased, and her work load would have increased by two to three times. The motion for reconsideration was denied. P appealed. P testified that the position Davis offered her was similar to her former position except that it required her to work five days, at least 40 hours per week, and to manage at least one person. P wanted her bonus rolled into her salary and a salary adjustment because of her experience, since she would have increased management responsibilities and she would have to travel farther to and from work. Davis denied her request. Davis testified about the particulars of the job and that the only difference between them was that the lead coordinator served as the primary liaison between the company's diverting supervisor and the partnership account. Since a typical lead coordinator's maximum salary was $ 54,000, the $72,000 offer was extremely generous. The referee affirmed holding she was offered a comparable salary and benefits, the distance of travel was not excessive, the area she would have been assigned to was local and accessible by local highways, her travel time would have been less than one hour, and the added responsibility of liaison would not have been unduly burden some, as P had experience in the field and was considered competent. The Board affirmed. On administrative review, the circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board. At the court, P testified that she rejected Davis's offer in good faith, as she did not have the management skills necessary to perform the job, and the new position would have increased her work volume and hours without increased pay.

The legal issues presented in this case will be displayed here.

The court's holding and decision will be displayed here.

Legal analysis from Dean's Law Dictionary will be displayed here.