Officially Wrong (And It Feels So Good)

Dear Horrible Administrative Law Judge,

You are officially wrong. Congratulations.

Very sincerely,

Me

-----

Where I was once using a technicality to claim an undefeated hearing record (I had lost a case, but it was on appeal, so, in reality, I had not actually lost it), I can now claim – for the time being after today’s events – that I am officially undefeated.

For over 3.5 months, my roommate and I have been awaiting judgment on the case we appealed. Having submitted quite a extensive appeal brief, we were anxious to find out the “verdict”.

As I was walking to my car to head to the hearing, I received a call from the client whose case we had appealed. A few weeks ago, we received a positive judgment in record-breaking time against this employer (in favor of our client – our appeal client’s co-worker). Our lengthy wait made up for the blazing fast speed of the other case.

My client was on the other end of the phone, and cautiously proceeded to tell me that we had won the appeal, and that he would receive unemployment benefits, as he should have all along. I literally jumped-for-joy with the good news. I hurriedly dialed my roommate, and decided to have a bit of fun. As forlorn as was possible.

“I just got a call from our client about the appeal,” I said quietly. “Yeah, this time the judgment was a bit different.”

She pushed me to tell her about the outcome. When I told her that we had won the appeal, she screamed. I later found out that the scream occurred in the middle of a crowd of people who were studying.

I am elated that we won the case, and even happier to be able to close the file of another client. That is always a good feeling.

I wish I could be a “fly on the wall” of the Employer. He is having a bad month: my roommate and I are 2-and-0 versus his company. The man must hate us; that makes me happy.

The horrible judge was officially overruled. It must feel relatively bad to have “Mommy and Daddy Appeal Board” overrule your finding. Maybe it is important to allow people basic rights. Life is good, for now.

The following is the Appeal Board Judgment on the case:

-----

The Department of Labor Issued the initial determination disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits effective September 5, 2007 on the basis that the claimant lost employment through misconduct in connection with that employment and holding that the wages paid to the claimant by EMPLOYER prior to September 5, 2007, cannot be used toward the establishment of a claim for benefits. The claimant requested a hearing.

The Administrative Law Judge held a hearing at which testimony was taken. There were appearances by the claimant and on behalf of the employer. By decision filed November 29. 2007, the Administrative Law Judge sustained the initial determination.

The claimant appealed the Judge's decision to the Appeal Board. The Board considered the arguments contained in the written statement submitted on behalf of the claimant.

Based on the record and testimony in this case, the Board makes the following

FINDINGS OF FACT: The claimant worked as a manager for a chain of five or six retail stores for approximately seven years through September 4, 2007. In July of 2007, the claimant was reassigned to a store after the manager of that store quit. The claimant made an order on July 23, 2007 which was canceled because the president believed that it was excessive. On Saturday August 11, 2007 the claimant was in the process of compiling an order when the vice-president called and directed him to go to another store. The claimant informed the vice-president that he was in the process of making an order and the vice-president again reiterated that the claimant was to go to the other store. As a result the claimant left the remainder of the order to the assistant manager who had regularly completed orders. The assistant manager submitted the order on or about August 13, 2007. On September 4, 2007, the president informed the claimant that he was discharged because he was dissatisfied with the claimant's performance. When the claimant asked the president for a specific reason of why he was discharged the president would not elaborate.

OPINION: The credible evidence establishes that the claimant was discharged because his performance of his job duties did not meet the employer's expectations. While an employer may discharge its employees for any lawful reason it deems fit, it is not every failure to meet an employer's expectations that rises to the level of misconduct under the Unemployment Insurance Law. In this case there is no evidence that the claimant's inability to meet his employer's performance standards was the result of any intentional action or omission on his part. In so holding, we note that the president himself stated that the claimant was discharged for poor performance and refused to give the claimant any specific reason for his discharge. Moreover, even if we credited the president's testimony that the claimant was in fact discharged as a result of the August 13. 2007 order, we would still conclude that the claimant's actions do not rise to the level of misconduct. In reaching this conclusion, we note that the claimant could not complete the order because he was called away by the Vice-president and that he reasonably delegated the task to the assistant manager who had regularly placed orders in the past. Accordingly, under these circumstances, we conclude that the claimant's employment ended as the result of poor job performance and not as the result of misconduct.

DECISION: The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is reversed.

The initial determination of misconduct is overruled.

The claimant is allowed benefits with respect to the issues decided herein.