S T A T E O F M I C H I G A N 
C O U R T O F A P P E A L S 

JANICE EYRE, 
Petitioner-Appellant, 
v
SAGINAW CORRECTIONAL FACILITY, 
Respondent, 
and 
DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND ECONOMIC GROWTH 
Respondent-Appellee. 

FOR PUBLICATION 

February 27, 2007 

Before: Sawyer, P.J., and Wilder and Servitto, JJ. 
SAWYER, P.J. 

We are asked in this appeal to determine the appropriate standard of review to apply 
when determining whether an unemployment compensation claimant was properly denied 
benefits for refusing to accept a suitable offer of employment without good cause. We hold that 
the employer initially bears the burden of establishing that a suitable offer of work had been 
made, but, once the employer has met this burden, it shifts to the claimant to establish that there 
was good cause for the refusal. 

Petitioner was employed in the business office of the Saginaw Correctional Facility. She 
was laid off from that position. Although offered a similar position at the Standish Maximum 
Correctional Facility, she declined the offer citing health concerns and the longer driving 
distance. She was initially granted unemployment compensation benefits, the Department of 
Labor having concluded that she had good cause for refusing suitable work. That determination, 
however, was reversed after the employer protested. The new determination concluded that 
petitioner had refused a suitable offer of work without good cause. The hearing referee, the 
review board and the circuit court upheld this determination. We reverse and remand to the 
hearing referee. 

We decline to address the merits of this case because we conclude that the burden of 
proof was improperly placed on petitioner to establish both that the offered position was 
unsuitable or, if it was suitable, that she had good cause to refuse it. For the reasons to be 
discussed below, the burden rests on the employer to establish that suitable employment was 
offered. Once that burden is met, then the burden shifts to the employee to establish that there 
was good cause to refuse the offer of suitable employment. 

MCL 421.29(1)(e) provides that a claimant is disqualified for benefits if he or she fails 
without good cause to accept suitable work offered. Whether the burden of proof falls on the 
employer or the claimant is not clearly established under binding precedent. This Court, in 
Lasher v Mueller Brass Co,1 concluded that the burden rests on the employer to establish 
disqualification and, specifically, that the burden of proving suitability falls on the employer. 
But in Cooper v Univ of Michigan,2 this Court rejected the view that the burden of proving 
disqualification always falls upon the employer. This view was reaffirmed in Tomei v General 
Motors Corp.3 

In fact, although Tomei involved an issue of disqualification under MCL 421.19(1)(a) for 
voluntarily leaving work without good cause attributable to the employer, we believe that it 
presents a sound approach that guides us in this case. In Tomei, this Court concluded that, at 
least in the context of plant-closing cases, the burden should be on the employer to establish that 
it clearly communicated a viable offer of reasonable employment.4 But once the employer meets 
that burden, it shifts to the claimant to demonstrate that the decision to leave work was 
involuntary.5 

The Court’s rationale seems to be grounded in which party is better able to provide the 
information needed to answer the relevant inquiries.6 Applying this principle to MCL 
421.29(1)(e), we think that a bifurcated approach to the burden of proof is also called for. In 
these cases, the employer is in the best position to establish that an offer of suitable employment 
has been made. The employer is more likely than the employee to be familiar with the job 
requirements and working conditions of the new position and whether the employee can 
discharge those responsibilities. But the employee is more likely than the employer to be aware 
of conditions personal to the employee that might provide good cause for refusing that 
employment. 

Accordingly, we conclude that the employer should bear the burden of initially 
establishing that an offer of suitable employment has been made. Once the employer meets that 
burden, it then shifts to the claimant to establish that there existed good cause to refuse that offer. 
Because it is unclear to us that such a burden was followed below, we conclude that the correct 
legal principles were not followed.7 Therefore, the appropriate resolution of this case is to 
remand the matter to the hearing referee to reconsider the matter in light of the burden of proof 
outlined above. 

Reversed and remanded to the hearing referee for further proceedings consistent with this 
opinion. We do not retain jurisdiction. No costs, neither party having prevailed in full. 

/s/ David H. Sawyer 
/s/ Kurtis T. Wilder 
/s/ Deborah A. Servitto