Disqualification for Unemployment Benefits

[bentlyman]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? South Carolina

Hello,

I was hoping that someone here could provide me with some legal advice.

I was terminated from my job in May 2014 for "failing to perform assigned work to the employer's satisfaction". My claim for unemployment was subsequently denied for the same reason. I appealed the decision, but the denial was upheld during the appeal.

I began researching this on my own just yesterday for my own curioisity and found something that did not sit well with me. The exact reason stated on the claim denial form was:

YOU WERE DISCHARGED FROM YOUR JOB WITH YOUR MOST RECENT BONA FIDE EMPLOYER FOR FAILING TO PERFORM ASSIGNED WORK TO THE SATISFACTION OF THE EMPLOYER. THIS IS A DISCHARGE FOR CAUSE IN CONNECTION WITH THE WORK UNDER THE SOUTH CAROLINA CODE SECTION 41-35-120(2)(B). YOU ARE DISQUALIFIED FOR 16 WEEKS. YOUR MAXIMUM BENEFITS ARE ALSO REDUCED BY 16 TIMES YOUR WEEKLY BENEFIT AMOUNT.

SEPARATION OCCURRED FOR FAILING TO MEET PERFORMANCE EXPECTATIONS OF THE EMPLOYER.

With that said, the actual text of the applicable law seems to directly conflict with this finding. See below:

(b) If the department finds that he has been discharged for cause, other than misconduct as defined in item (2)(a), connected with his most recent work prior to filing a request for determination of insured status or a request for initiation of a claim series within an established benefit year, then the department must find him partially ineligible. The ineligibility must begin with the effective date of the request, and continuing not less than five nor more than the next nineteen weeks, in addition to the waiting period. A corresponding and mandatory reduction of the insured worker's benefits, to be calculated by multiplying his weekly benefit amount by the number of weeks of his disqualification, must be made. The ineligibility period must be determined by the department in each case according to the seriousness of the cause for discharge. Discharge resulting from substandard performance due to inefficiency, inability, or incapacity shall not serve as a basis for disqualification under either subitem (a) or (b) of this item.

The very last statement I feel is noteworthy.

So my question is, have I been wrongfully denied my benefits, or should I just let this thing go an chalk it up to a learning experience?

Thank you for your assistance.

 

[eerelations]

This "failure to perform" - was it because you refused to perform the work? Or was it because you tried and tried and just couldn't do it properly?

 

[bentlyman]

This "failure to perform" - was it because you refused to perform the work? Or was it because you tried and tried and just couldn't do it properly?

I never refused to perform the work. I did the best that I could but was just overwhelmed.

 

[cbg]

It would appear, based solely on the information we have available, that your employer was able to make a compelling case (whether correct or not) that you were capable of doing the work and either deliberately or negligently did not do so.

 

[Chyvan]

I appealed the decision, but the denial was upheld during the appeal.

I agree that you had a good chance to win on appeal, but you didn't. You can't use the initial determination anymore in your research. You need to work with the appeal decision. What were the "findings of fact" and "reasoning and conclusions" of law from the hearing.

 

[commentator]

There is very little benefit in trying to go on past the initial decision and the hearing decision. Forget doing more research. You don't have anything to work with at this point. Unless you have very compelling new evidence, the way it has been is how it will stay. I do not see anything new in your re-hashing and interpreting of the statute.

If it has been more than 15 days since your second decision, you may as well forget everything. Because after the window to appeal this decision( usually 15 days) is closed, not even the board of review will be interested in the situation.

Since we do not know exactly what sort of evidence was presented in the appeals hearing, we have no way of determining whether or not they made a good decision, whether or not the employer met the burden of proof that they had a valid misconduct reason to terminate you. We do know that this was the determination of the appeals referee who heard the case. This appeals hearing officer was looking for certain things, and has determined that those things were present. In other words, you presented your case, and the employer told their reason for the termination, and the officer determined that they did have a valid misconduct reason to terminate you.

If you request a review of the decision, which is your next appeal process, within a timely manner, then it goes to the board of review, whatever that step is called in your state. This does not mean another appeals hearing at which you get to argue your case again, only that the evidence and the decision will be reviewed by other parties to determine if unemployment law has been followed in this case. Believe me, these people read the unemployment statutes a lot more than you do, and they should be able to tell quickly if there was sufficient evidence to determine genuine misconduct based on performance issues.

Unemployment hearing decisions are rarely overturned by the board of review. If it isn't, there is a next stage, in which you actually take the matter to civil court. At this point, the unemployment system turns all their energy into arguing to defend the decision they have made against you. I have almost never seen one of these decisions that actually went into the court system overturned. And frankly, unemployment insurance just is not enough money to spend this much time effort and energy on what is probably going to be a useless endeavor.

And as I said, if you did not get in a timely appeal of the second decision to the board of review, there is no taking it to court anyway. All the steps of the appeal must be followed as prescribed, else the case ends.

What it amounts to is, you lost. You took advantage of your right to appeal. Apparently, the evidence was compelling enough to convince at least two independent decision makers,( the initial and the appeals hearing adjudicators) that your employer had a valid reason to terminate. Cut your losses by ceasing to worry about this, stop re-arguing the case in your head, reading unemployment law and trying to find better and more arguments for the case.

If you didn't get the appeal filed timely for the second decision, you won't even get a review by the board of review. Even if you do, I'd be slightly surprised if they overturned the hearing decision. The case is over, done finished, and you don't get another shot at it, cannot revive it. Go back to work and make more money. Then if you are laid off or terminated again, you will be able to fire another claim, and they'll make another decision about eligibility.

 

[Chyvan]

I got relief from a board of review appeal two out of three times, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it's as bleak as the above. Also, I've known two others that got the decision reversed, and a third that got relief. Considering that the board of review appeal isn't that tough to write, I think if you think you found something you should do it.

 

[quincy]

I got relief from a board of review appeal two out of three times, so I wouldn't go so far as to say it's as bleak as the above. Also, I've known two others that got the decision reversed, and a third that got relief. Considering that the board of review appeal isn't that tough to write, I think if you think you found something you should do it.

I'm sorry to question you, Chyvan, but could you provide support for what you have said above? It would be appreciated.

commentator has a track record on this site that you do not have as yet, and we know her background, so we generally request of new members who post that they provide evidence to support statements that are outside the experience of others who are known to have worked, or continue to work, in the field.

Thank you.

 

[Chyvan]

Chyvan, but could you provide support for what you have said above?

I tried. See how my post was editted by someone other than me? All my supporting links were removed, so I'm not going to bother backing up what I say anymore.

If the guy comes back and wants to pursue it, I'll tell him I'll email him the stuff. I wouldn't even really bother except he says this is about "poor performance," and that is treated more as inability rather than misconduct. With the "findings of fact" and "reasoning and conclusions" of law from the decision, it's not too hard to spot an obivious error. It could just as easily be that the hearing officer went in an entirely different direction, but he needs to sort that out if he wants to pursue it.

 

[quincy]

I tried. See how my post was editted by someone other than me? All my supporting links were removed, so I'm not going to bother backing up what I say anymore.

If the guy comes back and wants to pursue it, I'll tell him I'll email him the stuff. I wouldn't even really bother except he says this is about "poor performance," and that is treated more as inability rather than misconduct. With the "findings of fact" and "reasoning and conclusions" of law from the decision, it's not too hard to spot an obivious error. It could just as easily be that the hearing officer went in an entirely different direction, but he needs to sort that out if he wants to pursue it.

I read your previous post before someone reported it, Chyvan (I assume for a terms of service violation).

It appears that what the moderator edited out of your post was the single link you posted, to a thread located on another site's free advice forum (Labor Law Talk). That single thread was "all your supporting links" and how you planned to back up what you wrote here?

 

[commentator]

At no time did I ever say the person should not file an appeal with the board of review. It just sounded, from the way the person wrote, like it had been quite a while since the initial decision and the hearing. And I said that if the appeal to the board of review was not sent in or requested within the window for appeals of the decision, the whole shebang is over.

While you may think that the board of review was swayed by your eloquence in your presentation of additional argument, I will reiterate that mostly what the board of review is going after is whether or not unemployment law and policy was followed in the making of the two prior decisions. They review a transcript of the hearing, do not spend a great deal of time looking at your appeal paperwork.

And sometimes there is very compelling evidence that has come to light since the hearing, or additional evidence that one of the two parties did not present that will change the outcome, overturn the decision. I have seen appeals referees make outright errors. There is no reason why you should not file an appeal to the board of review if you are denied by decision after the hearing.

However, it is not something that you should reallyexpect to succeed at, and there's no point to spending a great deal of time working on your appeal and reading and quoting unemployment law. They know what it says about misconduct. You're not telling them anything new. Those people have all the unemployment statutes you can google close at hand, and work with them much more frequently than you, or any attorney you can hire work with them.

 

[bentlyman]

Thanks for the advice everyone. I believe it's just time to let this thing go and move on. Just got a new job anyway.