Fast Signs v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The present action is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff-employer, Fast Signs, appealed the decision of the Administrator, which granted the claimant's application for benefits.   The record reflects that the Administrator determined that the claimant was eligible for benefits, pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31–241.   The plaintiff then appealed the decision of the Administrator to a Referee, who conducted a de novo hearing in accordance with Connecticut General Statutes § 31–242, and affirmed the decision of the Administrator.   The plaintiff appealed the Referee's decision to the Board of Review, who adopted the Referee's findings of fact and affirmed her decision.   The plaintiff then took this appeal from the decision of the Board to this court.   The court finds that the Board's determination that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct was reasonable and within the Board's province and should not be overruled.¹

LEGAL ANALYSIS

“The appropriate standard of review with regard to [an unemployment compensation appeal] is limited.   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 facts nor hear evidence ․ The Superior Court, therefore, is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and the reasonable conclusions of fact made by the appeals referee ․ 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;  internal quotation marks omitted.)   Latina v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 54 Conn.App. 154, 159 (1999).

“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.”  (Internal quotation marks omitted.)  United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 209 Conn. 381, 385–86 (1988).   As to the legal merits of the appeal “[the court's] 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 (2003).   The issue is whether “the decision of the board was logically and rationally supported by the evidence.”  Calnan v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 43 Conn.App. 779, 785 (1996).

On appeal, the plaintiff argues that the Board's decision awarding unemployment compensation benefits to the claimant was not supported by the substantial evidence in the record.   The court disagrees with the plaintiff's position.   The record reveals that the plaintiff discharged the claimant for its overall dissatisfaction with her work, rather than a specific incident of wilful misconduct.  General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(B) provides in pertinent part that an individual is ineligible for benefits if he or she was discharged for “wilful misconduct in the course of the individual's employment.”  “Wilful misconduct” is defined as “deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest, or a single knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, when reasonably applied ․” General Statutes § 31–236(a)(16).   The Board found that at the Referee's hearing the plaintiff specifically testified that it discharged the claimant as the result of a “combination of things” and that it never issued the claimant “any written warnings or took any other disciplinary action after giving the claimant a written performance review that cited duties which the claimant was performing well and duties which the claimant needed to improve.”   Record, p. 74.   As a result, the board properly concluded that the plaintiff was not discharged for wilful misconduct.

Given the limited review a trial court exercises over unemployment compensation act appeals and the Board's application of the facts to the governing provisions of law, the court finds that the Board had sufficient evidence before it when it concluded that the claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits.   Based on this finding, the court cannot disturb the board's conclusion.   The assessment of the credibility, weight and inferences drawn from the evidence are in the province of the board, not the court.

CONCLUSION

Based on the foregoing, the court hereby grants the defendant's motion to dismiss the plaintiffs appeal.

By the Court:

Alexander, J

FOOTNOTES

FN1. In making this finding, the court will not address the argument presented by the defendant in its Memorandum of Law dated April 21, 2010, that the plaintiff's appeal is subject to dismissal because a corporation may not appear by an officer of the corporation who is not an attorney..  FN1. In making this finding, the court will not address the argument presented by the defendant in its Memorandum of Law dated April 21, 2010, that the plaintiff's appeal is subject to dismissal because a corporation may not appear by an officer of the corporation who is not an attorney.

Alexander, Joan K., J.