New Case on Unemployment Hearing Proof

Posted by marykeating on January 1, 2010 under Unemployment compensation | Be the First to Comment

The Court of Special Appeals recently granted unemployment benefits to a woman whose claim had been rejected by a hearing examiner, the Board of Appeals, and the Circuit Court.  Pursuing this many appeals is not easy, nor inexpensive, but the effort will help others, not just the unemployed claimant in this case.

Michelle Parham worked for several months for Mid-Atlantic Baking Company.  She called in sick one day early in her tenure, then again for two consecutive days.  Upon her return, her supervisor gave her a write-up, with the box marked “termination” checked.  Another company document states that Ms. Parham walked out without clocking out, and thus was labeled a voluntary quit.

It is difficult but not impossible to obtain unemployment benefits if one quits a job; the reason for quitting is crucial.  In this case, though, Ms. Parham contended that she was fired, and the company claims that she was told to speak with a higher up supervisor, but instead, left the plant without ever contacting the company again.  The dispute centered completely on what was said at the final meeting between the employee and the manager on duty.

The manager on duty did not attend the hearing.  Instead, two employees who were not at the plant on Ms. Parham’s last date testified that she had been instructed to call the department supervisor, but instead walked out.  Their testimony was not based on personal knowledge, nor was it apparently based on discussions with the manager on duty.  Hearsay testimony, in which one person reports on what someone else says and offers it for the truth of the report, is allowed in unemployment hearings.  On the other hand, the hearsay testimony must give some indication that it’s reliable.  Mid-Atlantic failed to convince the court that its hearsay testimony, which contradicted both Ms. Parman’s testimony and the document indicating her termination, was not reliable enough to uphold the denial of benefits.

In litigation, companies often produce after-the-fact explanations of an employee’s departure.  This comes up frequently in discrimination cases, in which the reason for a termination is discriminatory bias or some legal explanation focusing on the employee’s faults.  To buttress its case, Mid-Atlantic should have brought the manager on duty as its witness, since she had personal knowledge of the discussion.   By leaving her out of the loop, Mid-Atlantic produced insufficiently strong evidence to support its version of the facts.