# Armstrong v. Daniels

> Court of Appeals of Arkansas · September 17, 1980 · 270 Ark. 303

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821403

## Case

- **Full name:** Linda ARMSTRONG v. Charles L. DANIELS, Director of Labor
- **Court:** Court of Appeals of Arkansas
- **Decided:** September 17, 1980
- **Citations:** 270 Ark. 303; 603 S.W.2d 481; 1980 Ark. App. LEXIS 1376
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Opinion of the court by Newbern
- **Judges:** Newbern
- **Cited by:** 2 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821403

## Opinion text

David Newbern, Judge. In this employment security benefits case, the appellant contends she quit her job because reimbursement for her gasoline expenses did not increase proportionately with the increase with the cost of gasoline. She contends this was “good cause connected with the work” and thus she should not be disqualified from receiving benefits. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 81-1106(a) (Supp. 1979). We affirm the board of review determination that this was not “good cause connected with the work.”
The appellant contends that her employer, the Arkansas Department of Labor, had increased the territory she was required to cover in her work as a labor investigator, and that it was costing her too much to drive her own vehicle. While we will consider allegations of substantial decrease in wages as good cause for voluntary departure from employment, we will not say that complaints based primarily upon economic conditions beyond the control of the employer fit the statutory exemption for disqualification. Broyles v. Charles L. Daiels, et al., 269 Ark. 712 , 600 S.W. 2d 426 (Ark. App. 1980). Apparently this employee takes no exception to the increase in her territory but for the coinciding increase in the price of gasoline. Thus, the primary reason for her voluntarily quitting her job was beyond the control of her employer.
Affirmed.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/7821403. Public record. Not legal advice.