Heather A. Bednar v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

BACKGROUND

This appeal is brought by the claimant, Heather Bednar, from a decision of the employment security board of review (board) affirming an appeals referee's decision that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits effective May 17, 2009 through May 15, 2010.   It is the claimant's position that she entered an agreement with her employer, SNET Information Services, Inc., in which she would retire in exchange for enhanced retirement benefits.   After she retired, contrary to the agreement, the employer sent her money that it designated as severance benefits and not enhanced retirement benefits.   As a result of this change that the claimant argues she did not agree to and was contrary to her written agreement, she became ineligible for unemployment benefits because the payments were considered taxable wages.

On July 2009, the administrator of the Connecticut Unemployment Act ruled the claimant disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits effective May 17, 2009 to May 15, 2010.   The administrator found that the claimant received or is about to receive unconditional severance pay.   The administrator also waived an overpayment in the amount of $1,602 for benefits paid for the weeks ending June 27, 2009 through July 11, 2009.   The claimant filed a timely appeal from the administrator's determination on July 30, 2009.

The appeals referee heard the claimant's appeal on September 16, 2009.   The appeals referee made the following five findings of fact:  “(1) The claimant worked for the employer from July 26, 1981 until May 13, 2009.(2)  The claimant received $107,667.71, before taxes were taken out, as part of an Enhanced Voluntary Separation Package (EVSP) The claimant actually received net $67,200, after taxes were taken out.   The claimant received this by a check dated on or about July 13, 2009.   The breakdown of taxes taken out is as follows:  federal withholding $26,916.93, Social Security $6,621.60, Medicare $1,561.18, Connecticut $5,368.  (3) The claimant did not elect to ‘rollover’ any of the money into a pension or investment plan.   The claimant had bills she wanted to pay and used some of the severance pay for that purpose.   The claimant elected to take a lump sum payout.  (4) Under the terms of the normal EVSP the claimant was eligible to receive 52 weeks of severance per year, because she had worked for the employer for more than 20 years.   Under the claimant's unusual circumstances the employer decided to pay her 120% of the severance pay the claimant would ordinarily have be eligible to receive based upon length of service.  (5) There were no conditions attached by the employer to the claimant receiving the $107,667.71, and the claimant was not required to give up her rights to sue the employer or any of her common law rights.”   The appeals referee affirmed the administrator's ruling.

The claimant filed a timely appeal to the board on September 25, 2009.   In support of her appeal from the referee's decision, the claimant argued that she elected to receive an early retirement pension annuity package but the employer paid it directly to her rather than including it in her pension.   Furthermore, the claimant argued that she was told that the payment would be a nontaxable pension rollover distribution.   Instead, she had to pay taxes on the distribution.   The claimant argued that she was misled into believing that she would be eligible for unemployment compensation benefits.   The board framed the issue as “whether the claimant's severance payment is allocable against her unemployment benefits.”

The board adopted the referee's findings of fact except that it modified finding of fact number four by adding the following sentences in lieu of the second sentence:  “The claimant was one of four retirement-eligible employees who were initially offered an enhanced retirement benefit offer.   These employees, who had to agree to retire, would have an enhanced amount of severance rolled into their pension accounts.   The employer subsequently determined that this offer conflicted with a provision of the collective bargaining agreement in effect for these employees.   Rather than revoke the offer for the four qualified individuals who had accepted it, the employer gave them the option to rescind their decision to accept the offer and remained employed, or to accept an [EVSP], but still receive the enhanced amount, which was 120% of the severance payment ordinarily awarded based on service.”   The board affirmed the decision of the referee concluding that the claimant had received a “dismissal payment” that was allocable against her unemployment compensation benefits under General Statutes § 31–236(a)(4) and Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31–236–46.

On August 16, 2010, the administrator filed a motion for judgment on the grounds that the board's decision is reasonably supported by the evidence as certified to the court, that there is a logical rational basis for the board's decision and that the court is bound by the board's findings of fact because the claimant has not filed a motion to correct the board's findings.   On the same day, the administrator filed a memorandum of law in support of the motion.   On January 7, 2011, the court heard arguments on the motion.

DISCUSSION

“[R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency's findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable ․ [T]he trial court may [not] retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact ․ [The court's] 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).

“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.”  (Internal quotat4on marks omitted.)   Mattatuck Museum–Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 238 Conn. 273, 276, 679 A.2d 347 (1996).  “[A]n agency's factual and discretionary determinations are to be accorded considerable weight by the courts.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 265 Conn. 417–18.

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  Mattatuck Museum–Mattatuck Historical Society v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 238 Conn. 276.

In her current appeal, the claimant alleges the following.   On or before April 9, 2009, her employer offered her an enhanced retirement benefit on the condition that she retire and sign an election agreement on or before April 13, 2010.   On April 9, 2010, she did elect this benefit and signed the election agreement, which was also signed by a supervisor or authorized manager of her employer.   After she retired, the employer recognized that it could not perform its obligations under the agreement.   Contrary to the agreement, the employer sent her money that it designated as severance benefits and not enhanced retirement benefits.   The employer never gave her the option to rescind her decision to accept the offer and it never gave her an opportunity to remain employed as found by the board.

To the extent the claimant challenges the findings of fact, the court notes that she did not file a motion to correct the findings.  “Practice Book § 22–4 provides in relevant part that ‘[i]f the appellant desires to have the finding of the [employment security board of review] corrected he or she must, within two weeks after the record has been filed in the superior court, unless the time is extended for cause by the board, file with the board a motion for the correction of the finding ․’ “ JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, supra, 265 Conn. 422.  “[F]ailure to file a timely motion for correction of the board's findings in accordance with § 22–4 prevents further review of those facts found by the board.”  Id. “[T]he timely filing of a motion for correction is a necessary prerequisite to a challenge to the board's decision.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)   Shah v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 114 Conn.App. 170, 175, 968 A.2d 971 (2009).   A claimant who fails to file such a motion cannot “challenge the board's findings on appeal to the Superior Court.”  Id.

“ ‘While the limits on a court's function in reviewing decisions of the board are well recognized, the failure of a claimant to file a motion to correct has not been considered fatal to the court's ability to review a decision to determine whether the board acted unreasonably, or arbitrarily ․ What could be more unreasonable or arbitrary than a decision to deny unemployment compensation based on a conclusion which has no support at all in the record upon which it purports to be based?’   Crenshaw v. Administrator;  Unemployment Compensation Act, Superior Court, judicial district of New Britain, Docket No. CV 99 0498448 (April 13, 2000, Shortall, J.) (27 Conn. L. Rptr. 80, 81).”  (Citations omitted.)   McKinney v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, Superior Court, judicial district of Waterbury, Docket No CV 09 5015790 (November 5, 2010, Pellegrino, J.T.R.).

The court notes that the record of proceedings before the board, which was filed in this case, contains documents unrelated to the claimant and not pertinent to this case as was certified.   For example document 1, administrator's exhibit # 5, is an email to Janice Hylton who is not the claimant in this case.   Additionally, document 3, administrator's exhibit # 5, is an agreement for enhanced retirement benefits dated April 9, 2009 and signed by Janice Hylton, who is not the claimant.   The documents on which the board relied and filed with this court could not provide a basis for a proper review of this claimant's case.

The board relied on documents included in the record that did not pertain to this claimant, therefore, the court determines that the board's action was unreasonable, arbitrary and illegal.   For the foregoing reasons, the court denies the motion for judgment and remands the case to the board for further findings of fact based on the record and revision of its decision if necessary.

PELLEGRINO, JTR

Pellegrino, Joseph H., J.T.R.