Summary
The Idaho Supreme Court considered whether payments made under an employment separation agreement were reportable severance pay for purposes of unemployment benefits. The court held that, after the first two weeks, the payments were made in exchange for the claimant's release of employment-related claims rather than for past services, and therefore were not reportable severance pay under the applicable administrative rule. The court reversed the Industrial Commission's decision and awarded costs to the claimant.
Holdings
- After the first two weeks, the payments Parker received under the release and enhanced-severance agreement were not reportable "severance pay" within the meaning of IDAPA 09.01.30.525.11 because they were consideration for her release of claims rather than payment for services previously rendered or a salary substitute.
- The Commission's decision and order was reversed because the payments Parker received after the first two weeks did not constitute reportable severance pay.
Questions Presented
- Whether periodic payments made pursuant to an agreement requiring Parker to release employment-related claims constituted reportable severance pay under IDAPA 09.01.30.525.11.
- Whether Parker was entitled to a waiver of repayment of unemployment benefits under Idaho Code section 72-1369(1)(d).
Disposition
reversed
Cases Cited (7)
- Laundry v. Franciscan Health Care Ctr., 125 Idaho 279, 869 P.2d 1374 (1994)(followed)
- Rhodes v. Industrial Commission, 125 Idaho 139, 868 P.2d 467 (1993)(followed)
- Wolfe v. Farm Bureau Insurance Co., 128 Idaho 398, 913 P.2d 1168 (1996)(followed)
- Moore v. Digital Equipment Corp., 868 P.2d 1170 (Colo. Ct. App. 1994)(followed)
- Pero v. Industrial Claim Appeals Office of the State, 46 P.3d 484 (Colo. Ct. App. 2002)(noted)
- First Sec. Bank of Idaho v. Murphy, 131 Idaho 787, 964 P.2d 654 (1998)(followed)
- Rutter v. McLaughlin, 101 Idaho 292, 612 P.2d 135 (1980)(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…