Marcia L. Kallon v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2012)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION RE MOTION FOR JUDGMENT

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 plaintiff's objection to the motion for judgment, and has considered all of the submissions and the arguments of the Assistant Attorney General, and the plaintiff Marcia L. Kallon.

The court has no authority to find facts in an unemployment compensation appeal hearing.   It is limited to reviewing the record certified to it by the Board of Review.   Credibility of witnesses is evaluated at the administrative level and not in this court hearing.   In order for the court to review the facts, a motion to correct the findings must have been filed.   That was not done in this case, although it is clear that notice was given concerning that procedure in the decision itself sent to the plaintiff.

The court understands the claim of the plaintiff, but is by law required to treat this as a record review not a new hearing.   The Board of Review determined that the claimant was ineligible to receive benefits.

As the Board of Review found:

In the case before us, there was no implied agreement between the parties to continue from year to year.   However, during a telephone conversation on or about March 17, 2010, the employer extended a verbal offer to the claimant to continue teaching for the Fall 2010 semester, contingent upon enrollment and upon satisfactory student evaluations.   We, therefore, find that the employer communicated an affirmative intent to rehire the claimant for the Fall 2010 semester on or about March 17, 2010.   The claimant worked for the employer since 2002, and as an adjunct professor since 2006.   The claimant taught one or two classes during each semester.   Consequently, we agree with the referee that the claimant had a reasonable assurance of rehire for the Fall 2010 semester as of March 17, 2010.

Based on the existing record, we find that the referee has adequately addressed the claimant's contentions.   Moreover, the parties have not offered any argument in support of or in opposition to the appeal which would disturb the referee's findings of fact.   We further find that the findings are supported by the record, and that the conclusion reached by the referee is consistent with those findings and provisions of the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation Act. Accordingly, we adopt the referee's findings of fact and decision, except that we modify the first sentence of finding of fact no. 2 to read:  “On or about March 17, 2010, the employer contacted the claimant by telephone and extended a verbal offer for her to continue teaching for the Fall 2010 semester, contingent upon enrollment and upon satisfactory student evaluations.”

Board of Review Decision (August 19, 2011) at 2–3 (Rec. At 58–59).

The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence.   The court finds the decision of the Board of Review on the merits follows reasonably from the facts found, and the correct application of the law to those facts.   The decision is not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law.

The decision is affirmed, and the defendant's Motion for Judgment, Motion # 102.00 dated January 10, 2012 is granted.

The appeal is dismissed.

EDWARD R. KARAZIN, JR.

JUDGE TRIAL REFEREE

Karazin, Edward R., J.T.R.