those who are married, single or unmarried, divorced, widowed, separated, or remarried and those who are not. □ Withholding Unemployment Benefits for Resigning due to Relocation by Divorce A former daycare center teacher filed a complaint arguing that she was unfairly denied of unemployment benefits. The complainant was forced to resign from her job as a day care teacher in XX City of Gyeonggi-do when she relocated to OO City to move in with her parents after a divorce and unable to commute. When she applied for unemployment benefits, the XX employment center of the XX Provincial Office of Labor and Employment rejected her claim that resignation due to relocation following divorce, unlike relocation following marriage, was not eligible for unemployment benefits. When questioned by the Commission, the XX employment center responded that they can approve unemployment benefits when relocation by divorce is recognized as ‘other inevitable reasons of job change’ as set forth in Article 58 of the Employment Insurance Act and Article 101 of Enforcement Decree of the Act, but doing so required legitimate evidences to be submitted to the employment center. Since dissolution of marriage is as important personal change as marriage that warrants the necessity and possibility of relocation, the Commission decided that the employment center’s policy to limit the scope of life-altering changes of workers to cohabitation by marriage was not reasonable and failed to fully reflect the reality where diverse forms of family status and life-altering changes are observed. In addition, given that i) unemployment benefits are of monetary value and to be provided on time to sustain livelihood while being unemployed; ii) substantial disadvantages and inconveniences are expected in case when the unemployed enters into a request for administrative adjudication, etc. instead of seeking jobs; and iii) it is difficult to ensure effective remedies by through measures such as administrative adjudication, the Commission rejected the employment center’s claim that the policy was not discriminatory since there were legal measures to appeal the policy. Chapter 4. Investigations and Remedies: Discriminatory Acts 115