Supreme Court PLEASE HELP

[eerelations]

Agree. Your friend applied for UI benefits using the theory that he was forced to quit because he was whistleblowing, a legally protected activity. However, as you know, he was not actually whistleblowing as whistleblowing is defined by law. Ergo, he actually wasn't engaging in a legally protected activity. Which means he is not legally eligible for UI benefits. The Supreme Court cannot change that.

 

[commentator]

Er, not exactly. The friend applied for unemployment benefits. On the advice of his attorney, he did NOT use the whistle-blowing argument. Good advice, since he isn't a whistle blower, just somebody who got crosswise of his management, partly because or perhaps because he tried to report some issue to a supervisor. But anyhow, now that his claim has been denied because he did, basically, quit the job without what they determined to be a good job related cause, this friend of the friend has jumped in and thinks that if they now come up with the idea that he was a whistleblower, they can change the appeal decision and win the case. Of course, this assumes that this person knows more than the lawyer. It also appears that they skimmed the unemployment laws and saw that yes, eventually it could possibly go to the STATE supreme court. So they get all these big ideas about fighting this, going to the highest courts in the land. No case. No chance, no appeal, nothing there.

It's easy for a person with a basic knowledge of this process to glance at things like this and see. But it's not uncommon for people to have huge misconceptions about how the systems work until they actually become involved. I think this person now accepts that they're not going to be talking to the justices anytime soon.

 

[Hot Topic]

Some day I'm going to figure out why all these people write such impassioned posts on behalf of people who obviously don't care enough to write themselves.

 

[faithnlve]

Please show us where in any of your posts you referenced the STATE Supreme Court.

Can he and how should he go about asking the Supreme Court to reverse the order of the Review Boards decision because they would not allow anything new which would "prove" his employer retaliated against him due to the sensitivity of complaints put in by him

I have found a couple of cases where the Supreme Court of VT reversed for new hearing from Vermont Review Board (unemployment compensation)

 

[faithnlve]

Er, not exactly. The friend applied for unemployment benefits. On the advice of his attorney, he did NOT use the whistle-blowing argument. Good advice, since he isn't a whistle blower, just somebody who got crosswise of his management, partly because or perhaps because he tried to report some issue to a supervisor. But anyhow, now that his claim has been denied because he did, basically, quit the job without what they determined to be a good job related cause, this friend of the friend has jumped in and thinks that if they now come up with the idea that he was a whistleblower, they can change the appeal decision and win the case. Of course, this assumes that this person knows more than the lawyer. It also appears that they skimmed the unemployment laws and saw that yes, eventually it could possibly go to the STATE supreme court. So they get all these big ideas about fighting this, going to the highest courts in the land. No case. No chance, no appeal, nothing there.

It's easy for a person with a basic knowledge of this process to glance at things like this and see. But it's not uncommon for people to have huge misconceptions about how the systems work until they actually become involved. I think this person now accepts that they're not going to be talking to the justices anytime soon.

Just so you have some idea of why he quit: He was told to apply for a position, then told later it was not a good idea to apply for this position because his boss was homophobic. This same person went around letting other coworkers know he was gay and to be careful of him. His complaints of discriminating remarks to HR were ignored and never investigated, He reported to HR his foreman was using company equipment, and was retaliated against by his foreman for reporting him. He was not paid the same as other employees for the same work he did and complained again to HR after. His foreman transferred him immediately without notice to another district with no recourse and was told his old job was no longer an option. When he went for his unemployment benefits his "attorney" said all they had to show was that they made a change in his job to win. His attorney, the judge, and the opposing attorney agreed to it. he lost. The only thing his attorney said to him after losing was "coulda, woulda, shoulda. "Guess we should of taken a different approach". That attorney told him to suck it up, you lost and there is nothing you can do now. Just seems so wrong. So he wanted to appeal to add in all his other evidence of why he quit so he could prove "Constructive Discharge."

 

[faithnlve]

What question of law would your friend be appealing? Because that's all the Supreme Court will consider. A failed strategy doesn't make for a valid appeals case.

Should he have the right for a new hearing based upon evidence which would change the outcome of the first decision?

 

[commentator]

Quote: '...based upon evidence which would change the outcome of the first decision?" That's what we've been telling you here, the new evidence would NOT change the outcome of the first decision.

Yes, there have certainly been cases where the BOR has overturned appeals hearing decisions. And there have been cases where the State supreme court has reversed the BOR decision. But there is still no case here, IMHO. Let's see if the board of review agrees with me. He should be getting his decision from them soon. "Just seems so wrong " doesn't make it any different.

You need to be helping your friend move on, find another job, not camp out forever on how wrongly he was treated. He could only draw a few months of unemployment benefits IF he was approved, it's not a career choice or a lifestyle. He already spent a great deal of excess money on hiring the attorney in a losing appeal, and if you waste a lot of time brainstorming this issue further you'll just be wasting more of his time and possibly money.

 

[Zigner]

Should he have the right for a new hearing based upon evidence which would change the outcome of the first decision?

It's not evidence that was discovered after the original hearing. All of the information (evidence) was available prior to the original hearing. It will not be admissible.

 

[faithnlve]

It's not evidence that was discovered after the original hearing. All of the information (evidence) was available prior to the original hearing. It will not be admissible.

Yes what you say is true. But, this evidence "was" produced at the first hearing, yet, the administrative judge agreed not to allow some of the evidence in along with the opposing attorney. Claimants attorney agreed only on covering the transfer of job to a new location, but, was not part of the agreement of leaving some of the evidence out. The argument would be asking to remand for a new hearing based upon evidence not allowed which could change the outcome of the first hearing.

 

[commentator]

This is not a civil court case, this is an agency appeals process. The appeal has been made, a decision has been rendered, and if the Board of Review doesn't accept this next appeal your friend has made, this issue is OVER. The point I'm trying to get across is that even if they had heard this other stuff, it wouldn't have changed the outcome of the hearing, or changed the decision. There was not determined to be enough good reason for your friend to quit the job. Period. The unemployment system does not determine whether or not the employer was violating your friend's EEOC protections or penalize him because your friend felt he was homophobic, any more than it protects whistleblowers in private industry situations like this. NONE of the later evidences or materials or arguments you've produced have been anything that would have changed the outcome of the hearing. They're just new ways of trying to explain why he quit the job, and he doesn't get more chances to do that after his appeals decision has already been made and reviewed.

 

[Zigner]

Yes what you say is true. But, this evidence "was" produced at the first hearing, yet, the administrative judge agreed not to allow some of the evidence in along with the opposing attorney. Claimants attorney agreed only on covering the transfer of job to a new location, but, was not part of the agreement of leaving some of the evidence out. The argument would be asking to remand for a new hearing based upon evidence not allowed which could change the outcome of the first hearing.

Now you're changing the entire scenario. You weren't there, so I think we're done here...not gonna play whack-a-mole with you.

The lawyer who helped him in the first appeal process and the employees attorney decided the only evidence needed at this appeal hearing was the transfer of his job and no need for bringing up any of the retaliation issues. His lawyer told him it was sufficient enough for him to win on "Constructive Discharge". Of course my friend thought his attorney knew what he was doing. Well, he lost.