• Andrew Ramonas
    Lobbying Reporter
  • Beth Frerking
    Editor in Chief
  • David Brown
    Vice President/Editor, ALM
  • Diego Radzinschi
    Photo Editor
  • Jenna Greene
    Senior Reporter
  • Marcia Coyle
    Chief Washington Correspondent
  • Mike Scarcella
    Washington Bureau Chief
  • Todd Ruger
    Capitol Hill Reporter
  • Tony Mauro
    Supreme Court Correspondent
  • Zoe Tillman
    D.C. Courts Reporter

« D.C. Superior Court Senior Judges Up for Review | Main | Supreme Court Urged to Speed Up Financial Disclosures »

July 25, 2013



I'm sure she'd rather collect a paycheck than try to live on unemployment benefits. And if she could find another job, before or after quitting, she wouldn't need this ruling.

I think it's unfortunate that three women judges ruled for this woman, since an employer who's prone to abuse employees may shrug off the precedent as biased or sissy.


Sure in the best of circumstances, it would be best to find another job before quitting one. However, in this economy those are a rare find and from a former unemployment recipient myself, one would hardly quit simply to collect unemployment. It's barely enough to eat with. The article made no mention of food stamps, vouchers and such as you mentioned. I can fairly certain say there must have been more evidence involved before a decision was rendered.

Calvin John Mcphee

This is a very enlightening post. It can serve as a lesson to both employers and employees. Employers being respectful to their employees even when correcting them. And employees being able to stand up for their rights. According to, it's always best to know what to expect and what to do when caught in difficult circumstances.

Wondering What's Next!

I am currently in the same situation. Too scared to end up unemployed again, I am sitting back taking as much as I can. I recently "spoke up" for myself, in the same negative manner, and ended up being suspended. But, after this suspension, I will have to return to the same manager, and learn to keep my mouth shut, or have been told I will be fired. What's a girl to do?


To ColorBlindJustice: Would you stay in a provably-toxic house until you get approved for a mortgage and close on the next one? No, in certain situations, toxicity can affect health, which means removing oneself before more harm is done.

If it's as toxic as claimed, at some point, you may become too sick to present well for another job, complicating an already bad circumstance.


Without defending a loudmouth jerk of a boss, one can nonetheless be troubled by this ruling. For certainly a percentage of the workforce will now be inclined to allege their boss was mean to them just so they can sit on the couch and collect unemployment, food stamps, housing vouchers and more. Workforce participation is already dangerously low and decreasing under Obamanomics. Why would Judge Oberly and her colleagues make a worker's choice to disengage that much easier? And as much as one might understandably dislike one's job (or boss), wouldn't it be best to find another before quitting the job one has?

The comments to this entry are closed.

Blog powered by Typepad