Unemployment Tax Advisory Corporation
  Database Service  
  Headlines Clients  
District of Columbia Unemployment Case Law

Search only DC case law:
First, the workers went on strike. While they struck, they were locked out. They want unemployment for the period during which they were locked out.
She was fired for violating policy. But that policy was not clearly nor consistently understood.
She quit because the employer didn't have enough work for her, and because the employer's paychecks bounced. When she tried to present her records of time and pay, the hearings officer refused to accept them because they were not the employer's official records. But the employer, who should have presented those records, did not attend the hearing.
Teachers who have a reasonable assurance of a job next Fall are not eligible for unemployment during the Summer break. However, this is a substitute teacher. The mere fact that he is on the list of substitutes who may or may not be called for work next year does not amount to a reasonable assurance of a job.
The claims examiner said she was disqualified because she falsified documents. The appeals board said that wasn't proven, but she was disqualified based on attendance. The court says those two have to decide on the same issue.
She didn't receive a hearing notice until the day the hearing was scheduled.
She resigned to take care of her grandson. But then, at the hearing, she said she resigned due to safety concerns. Apparently, a claimant can do that. She can give one reason when they quit, then give completely new reasons at the hearing, and those new reasons have to be taken seriously.
He said the reason he appealed too late was because he received his notice from the agency too late. The hearings officer believed him; so that establishes the fact.
She faxed her appeal to the Department. She even called a clerk there to verify receipt. But the Department denied her appeal because he did not file a hard copy. The court says you printed out the fax, didn't you? Well, there's your hard copy. And the court said the Department "unreasonably exalted form over substance".
Says he quit because of stress; but never documented that to his employer.
He faxed his appeal to the Department. He even called a clerk there to verify receipt. But the Department denies his appeal because he did not file a hard copy. The court says the Department "mistook procedural irregularities for jurisdictional defects."
The employer appealed too late because, they say, they never received a form in the mail. The Department claims it was mailed, but the court points out, the Department offers no proof that it was mailed.
As soon as a claimant is found eligible, the department begins payingt benefits. But if an appeal later declares the claimant ineligible, then the claimant must pay back the benefits he has received.
She stated four reasons for quitting the job. The hearings officer only addressed three of these reasons. The court says that each and every reason must be dealt with.
She missed the hearing because her house caught on fire.
They claim that his poor performance was willful and deliberate, and hence amounts to gross misconduct. The court wants more evidence.
His appeal was late because various agency forms contained contradictory instructions.
She let her cousin use her employee discount card. Use of the card is limited to immediate family. But nothing specifically states that immediate family does not include cousins.
She did not earn enough to requalify for a second year of benefits. She says she was never told she had to.
The employer thought he was faking an ankle injury in order to take medical leave, so they made appointments to have his ankle examined. But he kept missing those appointments.
Severance disqualifies the recipient from benefits during the time for which it is intended to pay. The problem here is, severance did not start until some weeks after the layoff.
When he didn't receive a decision after his hearing, he called the Department, and was told to wait until a decision arrived by mail before filing an appeal. When nothing arrived by mail, he called again, and was told he would be sent another copy and the deadline would be extended. When he appealed, they told him he had missed the deadline.
The Office of Appeals and Review must abide by factual findings of the appeal hearing, even if they disagree with them.
The Department ommitted to include the suite number when sending a notice to the employer. The employer never got it.
She says she appealed as soon as she received her determination in the mail. Her appeal was only one day late. The court reasons that the agency may have placed her determination in their outbox one day and not put it in the mail until the next day.
The employer thinks her three documented instances of rudeness to customers constitute gross misconduct. She contends there was no misconduct. The hearing examiner compromises at plain misconduct.
The appeals board said she quit. In fact, all she did was refuse to stay late.
This case is all about procedural details, such as who filed what first, and nothing about the merits. In the end, the court decides that a claims examiner may testify at and take part in a hearing.
Falsifying an employment application is gross misconduct.

© Unemployment Tax Advisory Corporation 1 800 998 8822