Steven Ferguson v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2010)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT # 101, 102

PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

The court has reviewed the record certified to it by the Board of Review, the Defendant's motion for judgment, the plaintiff's pleadings, the memorandum submitted by the defendants dated October 20, 2009, and the brief in support of the appeal by the plaintiff dated November 17, 2009, and has considered all of the submissions including the transcript of the hearing by the Board of Review on October 20, 2008.   The court held a hearing on November 4, 2009.   The court heard argument from the plaintiff's counsel and from counsel for the Administrator of Unemployment Compensation Act.

A review of the records submitted by the Administrator of Unemployment contains a long history of an application for unemployment benefits followed by an initial denial of the claim on October 22, 2008, and a number of appeals which were concluded on April 15, 2009.   The plaintiff has filed this timely appeal of the decision to deny unemployment benefits to the unemployment claimant, Steven Ferguson.

LEGAL DISCUSSION

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing.   It is limited to reviewing the records certified to it by the Board of Review (board).   Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing.

The Board of Review determined that the claimant, Steven Ferguson, was ineligible to receive benefits because he was terminated for a violation of the policy of the employer, the Commerce Bank, that prohibits employees from authorizing their own overdrafts.   Specifically, the board determined that the employer provided sufficient evidence, “that on at least one occasion, the claimant directed/authorized the returns supervisor to pay his overdraft and issue a check for $1,000.”

In support of his objection and appeal of the decision of the board, the plaintiff has submitted a brief dated November 17, 2009.   In his response, the plaintiff argues that the decision of the board must be rejected because the board improperly found that his termination was the result of “felonious conduct.”   The plaintiff argues that his dismissal was nothing more than an overdraft of an account.   The plaintiff has misquoted and misstated the decision that is the subject of this appeal.   Upon appeal, the board determined that the claimant was discharged for willful misconduct pursuant to Section 31-236(a)(2)(B) of the General Statutes.   The plaintiff misunderstands the purpose of the statutory basis for unemployment compensation and the limited review of an unemployment referee or board.  “[T]he purpose of the unemployment compensation act is to provide income for the worker earning nothing because he is out of work through no fault or act of his own ․” (Citation omitted.)   Cervantes v. Administrator, 177 Conn. 132, 136, 411 A.2d 921 (1979) “[T]he [unemployment compensation] act is remedial and, consequently, should be liberally construed in favor of its beneficiaries ․ Indeed, the legislature underscored its intent by expressly mandating that the act shall be construed, interpreted and administered in such manner as to presume coverage, eligibility and nondisqualification in doubtful cases.”  General Statutes § 31-274c (Citations omitted;  internal quotation marks omitted.)  Mattatuck Museum-Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, 238 Conn. 273, 278, 679 A.2d 347 (1996).   The plaintiff in this appeal appears to be addressing legal issues that were not considered by the appeals referee.   If this were so, the plaintiff was obligated to submit additional documents to correct the findings in accordance with Practice Book § 22-4.   Filing a motion to correct is a prerequisite to any challenge to the board's decision.   The plaintiff's failure to file a timely motion for correction pursuant to Practice Book § 22-4 precludes this court from further review of any new facts.  (Citation omitted.)  Reeder v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 88 Conn.App. 556, 558, 869 A.2d 1288 (2005).

As to the standard of review, our Supreme Court has indicated that this court has a limited role when reviewing an unemployment compensation appeal.  “To the extent that an administrative appeal, pursuant to General Statutes § 31-249b, concerns findings of fact, a court is limited to a review of the record certified and filed by the board of review.   The court must not retry the facts nor hear evidence ․ If, however, the issue is one of law, the court has the broader responsibility of determining whether the administrative action resulted from an incorrect application of the law to the facts found or could not reasonably or logically have followed from such facts.   Although the court may not substitute its own conclusions for those of the administrative board, it retains the ultimate obligation to determine whether the administrative action was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.”   (Citations omitted.)  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381, 385-86, 551 A.2d 724 (1988).

“As a general rule, ‘[t]he application of statutory criteria to determine a claimant's eligibility for unemployment compensation under General Statutes §§ 31-235 and 31-236 involves mixed questions of fact and law in which the expertise of the administrative agency is highly relevant.”  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, supra, 209 Conn. 386.   Moreover, the construction placed upon a statute or regulation by the agency responsible for its enforcement and administration is entitled to great deference.  Griffin Hospital v. Commission on Hospitals & Health Care, 200 Conn. 489, 496, 512 A.2d 199, appeal dismissed, 479 U.S. 1023, 107 S.Ct. 781, 93 L.Ed.2d 819 (1986).

As to the legal merits of the appeal, “[our] ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 417, 828 A.2d 609 (2003).   The issue is whether “the decision of the board was logically and rationally supported by the evidence.”  Calnan v. Administrator, 43 Conn.App. 779, 785, 686 A.2d 134 (1996).

Connecticut General Statutes § 31-236(a)(2)(B) provides in pertinent part that an individual is ineligible for benefits if the individual has been discharged for conduct that is “wilful misconduct in the course of the individual's employment.”   The referee found “that the employer discharged the claimant for wilful misconduct in the course of his employment.”   Connecticut General Statutes defines willful as “a single knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, when reasonably applied, provided such violation is not a result of the employee's incompetence ․” Jeffrey A. Taylor v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al., Superior Court, judicial district of Tolland, Docket No. CV 09 4011786, (Sferrazza, J., December 11, 2009).   The decision of the board is reasonably supported by the evidence of the plaintiff's decision conduct as noted in the transcript of the hearing, as well as the evidence submitted to the referee at the time of the hearing.

The court finds, on the basis of the certified record, that the defendant board was justified in its' conclusion concerning the plaintiff's ineligibility because of his position with the bank and his actions in regard to an overdraft of one of the businesses to which he was a signatory.

The decision of the Board of Review follows reasonably from the facts found and correctly applies the law to those facts.   The decision is not arbitrary, capricious or contrary to law.   The decision is affirmed and the defendant, Administrator's, motion for judgment dated October 20, 2009, is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

Brazzel-Massaro, J.

Brazzel-Massaro, Barbara, J.