VL 600.1 Decline in Business

Click on the case numbers below to access eligibility decisions that are based upon whether a claimant was compelled to leave an employer that had lost business.

0015 9635 27

0015 9635 27 (Dec. 24, 2015) — A claimant, the owner of a corporation which is also her employer, who shows that the corporation was losing money, had large outstanding debts, and could not secure a loan or further financing to keep the business going, has carried her burden to show that it was financially necessary to close the business down and that she separated involuntarily under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e).


BR-117413-CTRM (Aug. 25, 2011) — A majority of the Board concluded that the claimant, the president and partial owner of two corporations, was not entitled to benefits under the doctrines set forth under White or State Street Bank.  Unlike the claimant in White, who was a low-level employee with no control over his pending layoff, and the claimants in State Street, who had no information to assess their vulnerability to layoff, the claimant had complete information and control over his separation from employment.  [Note:  The District Court affirmed the Board of Review.]


BR-109426-CTRM (April 7, 2009) — Sole shareholder of a closely held corporation was not eligible for benefits, because the business remained profitable. Claimant chose to shut it down in the face of an increasingly competitive market, but there was no evidence that he was compelled to do so by economic circumstances.


Tell us what you think