Shaquaya R. Harris v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (2011)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

PROCEDURAL HISTORY:

This is a statutory appeal concerning the denial of unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff's application was initially granted by the administrator.   Upon the employer's appeal, a hearing was conducted de novo by a referee.   The plaintiff did not attend the hearing.   The referee proceeded in her absence, Regs., Conn. State Agencies § 31–237g–26(c), and made findings of fact of wilful misconduct on the part of the plaintiff as defined in General Statutes § 31–236(a)(16).   The referee reversed the decision of the administrator and denied the plaintiff benefits pursuant to General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(B).

Upon the plaintiff's appeal pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249, the board of review determined that the plaintiff had not shown good cause for failing to attend the hearing before the referee.   The board adopted and added to the referee's findings of fact and affirmed her decision.   The plaintiff filed a petition for review with the board.   Following a hearing which the plaintiff attended, the board made a finding that the plaintiff was not credible as to her claim of good cause for failure to attend the referee hearing.   The board considered the petition for review as a motion to reopen pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249a and denied the motion.   Based on the plaintiff's stated intent at the hearing, the board certified the record as an appeal of the plaintiff to the Superior Court, pursuant to Section 3l–249b of the General Statutes.

The plaintiff did not file with the board a motion for correction of the findings as required by Practice Book § 22–4.   The plaintiff has not filed any memorandum of law or position statement in support of her appeal.   The defendant administrator has filed a memorandum of law in opposition to the appeal.

STANDARD OF REVIEW:

Under General Statutes § 31–249b, the Superior Court does not undertake de novo review for unemployment compensation appeals from the Employment Security Board of Review.   Rather, based upon the record submitted by the parties, the court must determine whether the board could reasonably arrive at the factual findings and the conclusions of law that form the basis of this appeal.   See Finklestein v. Administrator, 192 Conn. 104, 112–13 (1984).

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings of the board, this court is not entitled to “retry the facts or hear evidence.   It considers no evidence other than that certified to it by the board, and then for the limited purpose of determining whether ․ there was any evidence to support in law the conclusions reached.  [The court] cannot review the conclusions of the board when these depend upon the weight of the evidence and the credibility of witnesses.”  Conn. Practice Book § 22–9.

Here the board adopted the factual findings of the referee with regard to the reason for denying the plaintiff's application for benefits and added another.   In such a case, the Superior Court reviews that decision only to determine if the board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.  Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495–96, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).

ANALYSIS:

Section 31–236(a)(2)(B) of the General Statutes states that an individual is ineligible for benefits if she is discharged or suspended for wilful misconduct in the course of her employment.   The board of review adopted the findings of the referee as to wilful misconduct of the plaintiff.   The board added a further finding that the plaintiff had prior workplace incidents similar in nature to the one which precipitated the plaintiff's discharge.   The plaintiff did not file a motion to correct the findings.   Because there was no motion to correct the findings of the Board, this court is not entitled to entertain a challenge to those findings.  Guevara v. Administrator, supra.

In the absence of a motion to correct the findings, the court is limited to a review of the record to determine if the board's decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, or illegal.   It is apparent from the record that the board conducted a full and fair review of the evidence submitted to the referee and her findings.   Additionally, because the plaintiff filed a petition for review concerning her failure to appear at the hearing before the referee, the board had a hearing on the issue, heard from the plaintiff as to her claim of good cause and found the plaintiff not to be credible on the issue.   The board adopted the referee's findings and added another, which is indicative of a thorough review.   There is nothing in the record which leads the court to conclude that the decision of the board was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Id.

CONCLUSION:

The appeal is dismissed.

Robert E. Young, J.

Young, Robert E., J.