# In Re the Appeal From the Final Decision of the South Dakota Department of Labor, Unemployment Insurance Division, for Fickbohm

> South Dakota Supreme Court · August 18, 1982 · 323 N.W.2d 133

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9689367

## Case

- **Full name:** In the Matter of the APPEAL FROM the FINAL DECISION OF the SOUTH DAKOTA DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION, FOR Laura FICKBOHM, Appeal No. C-2587
- **Court:** South Dakota Supreme Court
- **Decided:** August 18, 1982
- **Citations:** 323 N.W.2d 133; 1982 S.D. LEXIS 368
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Dunn
- **Judges:** Fosheim, Henderson, Wollman, Dunn, Morgan
- **Cited by:** 4 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/9689367

## Opinion text

DUNN, Justice
(dissenting).
I would concur with the majority that the fulfillment of parental responsibilities and duties constitutes good cause for refusing to accept a job under SDCL 61-6-15. I would, however, reverse and remand this case for a determination of whether appellant made a good faith effort to secure care for her child while she worked on Saturdays.
The good faith test adopted by the majority in this case works a hardship on appellant. This standard requires the establishment of a factual record at the time of the hearing; a requirement appellant was not aware of at the time of her hearing. The hearing in this case was conducted before a referee who elicited information from appellant in the form of questions. Appellant was not represented by counsel (although counsel is not required at such hearings), was not given the opportunity to call witnesses and present testimony concerning good faith to procure day care facilities for her child, and, more importantly, was not even asked by the referee about her efforts to find child care.
There was just no factual hearing held on the issue of the good faith efforts of appellant to obtain suitable care for her child on Saturdays. This was undoubtedly due to the fact that the State rejects outright the “fulfillment of parental responsibilities” test to show good cause for refusing employment. The appellant is entitled to a hearing and finding on this issue and I would reverse and remand the case for this purpose.
I am authorized to state that Justice MORGAN joins in this dissent.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9689367. Public record. Not legal advice.