# Boucher v. Maine Employment Security Commission

> Supreme Judicial Court of Maine · August 8, 1983 · 464 A.2d 171

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705207

## Case

- **Full name:** Maurice P. BOUCHER v. MAINE EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION
- **Court:** Supreme Judicial Court of Maine
- **Decided:** August 8, 1983
- **Citations:** 464 A.2d 171; 1983 Me. LEXIS 778
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Dissent by Wathen
- **Judges:** Godfrey, Nichols, Roberts, Yiolette, Wathen, Dufresne
- **Cited by:** 8 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/9705207

## Opinion text

WATHEN, Justice,
dissenting.
I must respectfully dissent. The Court acknowledges that dissatisfaction with wages does not generally constitute “good cause” and yet undertakes the task of distinguishing those situations in which the employee has received a “substantial reduction” in wages. It is difficult to imagine a line that is more difficult to draw in the absence of any statutory guidance. The difficulties inherent in such a task are further compounded when, as in the present case, the comparison is made between total compensation, including incentive pay, and the basic wage rate paid after return to work.
It is my view that the majority has ventured beyond interpreting the language of the statute and has reached a result which does not clearly serve any expressly defined *177 purpose of the Maine Employment Security law. As this Court stated in G.H. Bass and Co. v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 250 A.2d 492, 496 (Me.1969):
We must not, under the guise of a liberal interpretation and construction of the Act, extend its provisions beyond the legitimate goals which it was enacted to attain. The Legislature never intended it to be a health and accident measure, Toothaker v. Maine Employment Security Commission, supra, at page 206; nor that it should lend itself as a medium through which financial aid would be provided for the prosecution and support of a labor dispute, Bilodeau et al. v. Maine Employment Security Commission, et al, 1957, 153 Me. 254, 264 , 136 A.2d 522 ; nor that it should underwrite one’s private venture in self-employment, Ham v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 1966, Me., 216 A.2d 866 ; nor that it should be considered as a form of pension, Richardson v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 1967, Me., 229 A.2d 326 .
I would add that neither should the law be used to maintain a particular wage rate, a particular level of incentive pay, overtime, or fringe benefit. I would affirm the judgment of the Superior Court.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9705207. Public record. Not legal advice.