stating that "[i]n the area of . . . economics benefits legislation . . . a classification which is not inherently suspect will satisfy the guarantee of equal protection of the laws if it bears some rational relation to the legitimate state purpose of the act"
How later courts described this case
- stating that "[i]n the area of . . . economics benefits legislation . . . a classification which is not inherently suspect will satisfy the guarantee of equal protection of the laws if it bears some rational relation to the legitimate state purpose of the act"
- stating that "[i]n the area of ... economics benefits legislation ... a classification which is not inherently suspect will satisfy the guarantee of equal protection of the *58 laws if it bears some rational relation to the legitimate state purpose of the act”
- extending same right to unemployment benefits to employee who voluntarily quits job to perform marital duties as is extended to employees who voluntarily quit for other reasons
- “The burden of proving eligibility is upon the claimant and the hearing examiner is the judge of the veracity of the claimant and the weight of the evidence.”
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Neely, Justice
dissenting:
I dissent on the grounds that statutory entitlements are uniformly arbitrary. Why can we all retire with full benefits at 65 but not at 64? Why is a person who voluntarily quits work disqualified for seven weeks rather than six or eight? These issues are political and must be addressed by the political and not the judicial process.
I am no more enamored of the legislative conclusion that “domestic quits” disqualify a beneficiary until he or she returns to full-time work than the majority. However, in 19721 left the West Virginia Legislature to become a judge. *501 When I did that I gave up the legislating business for the judging business. There is no political conclusion of a legislature which is beyond judicial repeal by appeal to an equal protection argument.
Certainly a legislature can so discriminate against the politically powerless and in favor of the politically powerful in the construction of a benefits scheme as to legitimately call the legislation into question under traditional due process rules. This, however, is very far from such a case. Can we say that married women as a class constitute an insular minority devoid of political power? Can we say that those who quit voluntarily and are, therefore, disqualified for only seven weeks constitute a powerful political lobby distinct and apart from the insular minority of domestic quitters? Certainly not! In an inherently arbitrary scheme no one facet of the scheme is necessarily more arbitrary than another. Thus this case is an improper occasion for the judiciary to intervene in the active political process.