Why would a judge be more concerned with my job history & not why I got fired?

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I was terminated for disclosing to a 3rd party and misuse of company internet. Both claims caused a denial of unemployment benefits. Long story short both were false and employer could not provide evidence past hearsay. 1256 ui code. Nor could they prove a causal relationship to termination because neither happened. At my appeal hearing I made sure I submitted enough evidence from call quality showing the call never occurred. And that even if I had misused company internet no such policy was ever brought to me attention. The judge never brought either issue up. I was told that focusing on the reasons I was denied benefits and not my history was supposed to be the focus of the hearing. After this I'm not so sure I won the appeal.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

wizeguy68 said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I was terminated for disclosing to a 3rd party and misuse of company internet. Both claims caused a denial of unemployment benefits. Long story short both were false and employer could not provide evidence past hearsay. 1256 ui code. Nor could they prove a causal relationship to termination because neither happened. At my appeal hearing I made sure I submitted enough evidence from call quality showing the call never occurred. And that even if I had misused company internet no such policy was ever brought to me attention. The judge never brought either issue up. I was told that focusing on the reasons I was denied benefits and not my history was supposed to be the focus of the hearing. After this I'm not so sure I won the appeal.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Click to expand...

Thank you for sharing.

wizeguy68 said:

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? California
I was terminated for disclosing to a 3rd party and misuse of company internet. Both claims caused a denial of unemployment benefits. Long story short both were false and employer could not provide evidence past hearsay. 1256 ui code. Nor could they prove a causal relationship to termination because neither happened. At my appeal hearing I made sure I submitted enough evidence from call quality showing the call never occurred. And that even if I had misused company internet no such policy was ever brought to me attention. The judge never brought either issue up. I was told that focusing on the reasons I was denied benefits and not my history was supposed to be the focus of the hearing. After this I'm not so sure I won the appeal.What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)?

Click to expand...

That question you'd have to ask the judge who heard your case. We do not have a mental pathway into his head.

It could be that your employer could not offer sufficient evidence that the alleged infraction(s) occurred so the examiner (not a Judge) was not interested in hearing your defense. There is no point discussing defenses against charge(s) that the examiner doesn't believe is true to begin with.

Keeep certifying for weeks of benefits as they go by. Forget about arguing about what happened in your hearing. If the hearing goes against you you have only one more appeal, to the board of review,which will review the case to make sure unemployment law was followed. You will not get to make any more in person arguments, and can't hire an attorney and sue them all at this point (or any point.) As the others have said, we can't make out what happened,or what relevance the questions you were asked had on your case, we don't have enough information.

The appeals officer will ask questions if he/she does not think enough of the pertinent issues have been covered. It is possible he was asking you how long you had worked for the company and previous experience in the field to determine if your claim was related to performance as opposed to misconduct, in other words, if you had been at the job long enough to understand exactly how to do it, what you were expected to do. That's a relevant fact.