# Pacific Legal Foundation v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board

> California Supreme Court · March 2, 1981 · 29 Cal. 3d 101

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544757

## Case

- **Full name:** PACIFIC LEGAL FOUNDATION, Plaintiff and Appellant, v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEALS BOARD, Defendant and Appellant
- **Court:** California Supreme Court
- **Decided:** March 2, 1981
- **Citations:** 29 Cal. 3d 101; 172 Cal. Rptr. 194; 624 P.2d 244; 1981 Cal. LEXIS 129
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Richardson
- **Judges:** Newman, Richardson
- **Cited by:** 86 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/9544757

## Opinion text

RICHARDSON, J.
I concur in the result reached by the majority. However, I believe that once the majority has determined that the scope of review under section 409.2 of the Unemployment Insurance Code (all statutory references are to this code) is limited to issues of law which cannot, as a matter of due process, affect the previously adjudicated rights of the parties to the underlying controversy, all subsequent discussion of Carroll’s compliance with seek-work instructions unnecessarily examines the trial court’s factual findings. Under the standard expressed in part I of the majority opinion, in my view the correctness of the board’s ruling on the facts need not be reviewed.
I further concur in the majority’s conclusion that a claimant is entitled to rely on the specific “course of action” recommended by the EDD “[w]hen the EDD is better situated than the claimant to know ‘customary methods of obtaining work . .. and the current condition of the labor market.’” (Ante, p. 112.) I emphasize, however, that it is not my understanding that the majority holds, because it is not at issue, that the EDD in all cases must prescribe a detailed seek-work plan for all claimants. In some instances, a claimant’s superior knowledge of the employment market may place a heavier burden on such claimant to use his initiative in seeking work.
In summary, the case before us does not present the questions—what constitutes (1) adequate “specific and reasonable instructions” by the EDD, or (2) adequate compliance with such instructions by all claimants, who must make “all reasonable effort to secure employment on *119 their own behalf”? (§ 100.) In my view, the majority correctly holds that there is no independent “seek-work” requirement imposed on claimant under subdivision (c), which is greater than the requirements expressed in subdivision (e) of section 1253, and with that holding I concur.
Clark, J., concurred.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9544757. Public record. Not legal advice.