• FreeAdvice has a new Terms of Service and Privacy Policy, effective May 25, 2018.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our Terms of Service and use of cookies.

MCHR/EEOC charge & Unemployment claim.

Accident - Bankruptcy - Criminal Law / DUI - Business - Consumer - Employment - Family - Immigration - Real Estate - Tax - Traffic - Wills   Please click a topic or scroll down for more.

ATA2019

New member
Missouri.

Does proving an employer committed perjury in an unemployment hearing help my claim? And, does it help with the EEOC charge?

Currently, I have an MCHR/EEOC charge, and an unemployment claim in process against my former employer. MCHR has handed it to the EEOC for performance as the charge is discrimination AND severely pervasive hostile work environment (not covered by Missouri state law). EEOC has assigned mediation with scheduling TBD. Unemployment claim was denied all the way through the LIRC, but in request for reconsideration, the LIRC ordered a remand. I voluntarily left the employer, and claimed benefits under leaving for good cause; discrimination. During the first round of my appealing initial denial of benefits, the HR rep for my former employer committed perjury by claiming a particular meeting held prior to my resignation did not have anything to do with my raising concerns of discrimination. I clearly stated the majority of said meeting was an attempt to raise my concerns. Benefits were denied, then denied again by the LIRC. In requesting reconsideration by the LIRC, I provided a recording of the aforementioned meeting, proving the material majority (latter ~42 of a ~50 min meeting) was nothing but a discussion of my concerns with HR. The LIRC granted reconsideration, and an in-person hearing with scheduling TBD.
 


Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
Perjury is a criminal offense, and it only applies to false statements made in certain settings, like false statements at a trial or hearing, in sworn testimony in a deposition, administrative proceeding, etc, and when executing certain statements to the government under penalties of perjury. It is not clear if your employer's statements would be subject to perjury but even if they were, it is not an often prosecuted crime.

Of course, the real focus of your question is whether providing proof that the employer lied (whether or not it was perjury) would help you. It certainly can as that will tend to undercut the employer's credibility across the board, making the employer's statements less reliable.
 

Chyvan

Member
You better read your stuff very carefully as to what this next hearing is about.

the HR rep for my former employer committed perjury by claiming a particular meeting held prior to my resignation did not have anything to do with my raising concerns of discrimination. I clearly stated the majority of said meeting was an attempt to raise my concerns. Benefits were denied, then denied again by the LIRC.
Could be that the HR rep lied, OR tuned you out after the first 8 minutes for the "latter 42" and really was telling the truth that it was never discussed because they didn't remember.

In requesting reconsideration by the LIRC, I provided a recording of the aforementioned meeting, proving the material majority (latter ~42 of a ~50 min meeting) was nothing but a discussion of my concerns with HR. The LIRC granted reconsideration, and an in-person hearing with scheduling TBD.
The problem I'm having is that the rule is NO NEW EVIDENCE unless it didn't exist at the time of the initial hearing. If you had a recording, the time to use it was at the FIRST hearing. The employer might very well able to get it excluded because you had your chance.
 

Taxing Matters

Overtaxed Member
The problem I'm having is that the rule is NO NEW EVIDENCE unless it didn't exist at the time of the initial hearing. If you had a recording, the time to use it was at the FIRST hearing. The employer might very well able to get it excluded because you had your chance.
That'll depend on the applicable rules of evidence, of course, but while it might not be admissible by the OP as evidence, it likely could be used to impeach the credibility of the employer. The difference is, at least to most nonlawyers, a subtle one but it important. Using it for impeachment requires a different approach than trying to get it admitted as evidence. (And impeachment means something rather different here than it does when talking about efforts to impeach the president. :LOL:)
 
Sponsored Ad

Top