Peter A. Martin v. Honorable Raymond J. Donovan, Secretary of Labor, United States Department of Labor

Peter Martin was discharged for intoxication on the job by Areata Redwood Company, an “affected employer” under Title II of the Redwood National Park Expansion Act of 1978, Pub.L. No. 95-250, §§ 201-213, 92 Stat. 163 , 172-82; see id. § 201(6). He now seeks benefits under the Redwood Act.

A discharge, even for cause, may qualify an employee for benefits under § 201(12) of the Redwood Act, which defines “total layoff” as “a calendar week during which affected employers have made no work available to a covered employee.” Martin argues that an employer “makes no work available” to an employee when the latter does not simply quit but is affirmatively discharged.

The Secretary, however, denies that a discharge for cause is a layoff. Our analysis does not turn on whose reading of the statute we find more reasonable. Instead, § 213(f) of the Redwood Act commands us to. accept the interpretation offered which most favors the class of employees as a whole, as long as that interpretation is reasonable. Barker v. Donovan, 721 F.2d 271 , 273 n. 1 (9th Cir.1983); Bradford v. Donovan, 695 F.2d 409, 410 (9th Cir.1982); Drapich v. Donovan, 693 F.2d 1296 , 1298 n. 3 (9th Cir.1982).

Here,…