Rini V. Aliu v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act et al. (2013)

MEMORANDUM OF DECISION

The present action is a statutory appeal concerning unemployment compensation.   The plaintiff Rini V. Aliu was terminated by the employer T–Mobile USA, Inc. on May 17, 2012 for violation of employer's rules or policy pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(B).  The plaintiff claimed unemployment benefits on May 26, 2012.

On June 11, 2012 the defendant, Administrator, found the plaintiff ineligible for unemployment benefits.   On July 18, 2012, a referee heard the appeal of the employee which was filed on July 2, 2012.   On July 19, 2012 the administrator's decision denying unemployment benefits was sustained and the plaintiff was disqualified from receiving benefits.

The plaintiff filed a Motion to Reopen the referee's decision which was denied.   On October 29, 2012, the plaintiff appealed the referee's decision to the Board of Review per Connecticut General Statutes § 31–248.   On March 21, 2013, the Board of Review (the Board) affirmed the referee's decision dismissing the appeal.   On July 8, 2013, the plaintiff appealed to Superior Court under Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b.

The matter comes to this Court on the administrative appeal docket pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes § 31–249b.

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, 733 A.2d 885 (1999).

Connecticut General Statutes § 31–236(a)(2)(B) provides in relevant part that “an individual shall be ineligible for benefits:  ․ if, in the opinion of the administrator, the individual has been discharged ․ for wilful misconduct in the course of the individual's employment ․”

The Board of Review found in this case that:

The claimant's motion to the referee to reopen that decision was filed on September 21, 2012, one and one-half months beyond the twenty-one day appeal period allowed by law.   In his motion, the claimant contends that he was “taken away from the process” of prosecuting his unemployment claim by his supervision of repairs to his home.   In his motion, the claimant did not specify the type of damage to his home, when the damage occurred and why the construction prevented him from filing an appeal within the twenty-one day appeal period.

We have held that a claimant's preoccupation with personal matters that are not an emergency and that would not have prevented a reasonably prudent individual under the same or similar circumstances from filing a timely appeal does not provide good cause for filing a late appeal.   See McNamara v. The Stanley Works, Board Case No. 993–BR–98 (12/12/98);  aff'd, Superior Court, judicial district of Hartford/New Britain at New Britain, docket No. CV98–0585418–S (March 29, 1999) (claimant's late filing was not excused by his wife's announced intent to divorce him).   The claimant has not demonstrated that he was attending to an emergency that prevented him from filing a timely appeal.   Accordingly, the claimant's preoccupation with repairing his house did not constitute good cause for filing his appeal late.   Therefore, we conclude that the referee was required by law to deny the motion ․ Board of Review Decision, (March 21, 2013) at 2. (Rec. at 123).

As indicated previously, the court does not retry facts or hear evidence.   United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, supra, 385.   Nor does the court review a conclusion of the Board which rests on the weight of the evidence and credibility determinations.  Howell v. Administrator, 174 Conn. 529, 532, 391 A.2d 165 (1974);  Kaplan v. Administrator, 4 Conn.App. 152, 153, 493 A.2d 248 (1985).   The decision of the Board of Review on the merits should follow reasonably from the facts found and the correct application of law to those facts.  (Defendant Administrator's Memorandum pg. 4.)

CONCLUSION

Based on the findings of fact in this case, the plaintiff was dismissed from his employment for his failure to follow the employer's rules and policies concerning the writing and control of contracts with potential customers.   Although the sanction of discharge sounds harsh, pursuant to General Statutes § 31–249b the court may not undertake a de novo review of unemployment compensation appeals from the employment security board of review and is bound by those facts found by the board and the reasonable conclusions it reached therefrom.   The court may go no further than to determine whether the decision appealed from is unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.  Burnham v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 184 Conn. 317, 321–22, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981).   A party is barred from challenging the board's findings of fact on appeal to the court unless that party has timely filed a motion to correct the findings pursuant to Practice Book § 22–4 and § 22–8.  JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 265 Conn. 413, 422, 828 A.2d 609 (2003);  Shah v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 114 Conn.App. 170, 176, 968 A.2d 971 (2009).

In this case, no such motion to correct was filed, and based on the record before it, this court cannot say that the decision of the Board of Review was unreasonable, arbitrary or illegal.   Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.

BY THE COURT

V. ROCHE, J.

Roche, Vincent E., J.