UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - VOLUNTARY SEPARATION BECAUSE NEW YORK IS TOO EXPENSIVE

In this case, the reason for quitting turned out not to be just because "the rent is too high". Mailed and Filed: AUGUST 17, 2017, IN THE MATTER OF: Appeal Board No. 595502:

"FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant worked for an advertising agency in Manhattan for more than seven years, ending in the position of manager of content and marketing. At the time of separation, the claimant was earning $73,500.00. To meet her living expenses, the claimant also had accrued approximately $8,000.00 in credit card debt, and she owed $6,000.00 to her parents.

In November 2016, the claimant's parents advised her that they would not lend her any more money. They did not set any deadline for her to repay the money they had already lent her. They offered to let her live with them rent-free while she paid off her debts. Her parents lived in California.

The claimant considered her financial situation and concluded that her debt was out of
control. She saw no way that she could meet her living expenses and pay off her debts living in New York. The claimant's take-home pay every two weeks was $1,936.99. She was paying $1,550.00 per month toward her share of the rent on an apartment she shared with a roommate in the Williamsburg section of Brooklyn. Her other expenses included: Groceries - $400 per month; Laundry - $60 to $100 per month; Uber, Lyft and taxicabs - $150 per month; Air travel - $2,025 per year; Utilities - $50 to $100 per month; Internet - $40 per month; Restaurants - $1,000.00 - $1,100.00 per month on average; Netflix - $9.99 per month; Gym memberships at two gyms - $230.00 + $187.00 = $417.00 per month. The claimant paid about $1,000.00 per month toward her credit card bills, and she incurred interest on the outstanding balance each month.

The claimant gave the employer notice by the end of November that she would be quitting in December. The claimant's last day of work was December 16, 2016. Continuing work was available.

OPINION: The credible evidence establishes that the claimant quit her job with the employer because she felt she could not afford to pay her living expenses and also pay off her debts while living in New York. In assessing whether the claimant was financially compelled to quit, we consider not only the amount but also the nature of the claimant's expenses. In this regard, we note that the claimant's monthly expenses included, on average, $1,567.00 to $1,667.00 per month in restaurant expenses, private car service, and memberships at two different gyms. She also was spending more than $2,000.00 per year on air fare. These circumstances establish that the claimant did not quit because she was financially compelled to leave New York. Rather, she quit because she wanted to live more affordably without lowering her standard of living. We further note that while the claimant's parents had advised her that they would lend her no further money, they had set no timetable for the claimant to repay the money they had already lent her. Thus, the claimant's debt to her parents did not add any urgency to her need to relocate.

The claimant's choice to live rent-free while paying off her debts may have been a wise financial choice, but it was also a discretionary one. "We have previously held that relocations motivated by a lower cost of living, more desirable housing, and proximity to family do not constitute good cause to quit for purposes of the Unemployment Insurance Law" (see Appeal Board No. 583065, citing Appeal Board No. 582656, Appeal Board No. 570678). Whereas the claimant could have continued to live and work in New York if she had made different choices, the claimant's decision to quit was not supported by good cause. Accordingly, we conclude that the initial determination was properly sustained, and the claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits."