Two unemployment decisions were issued by the Ohio Court of Appeals in the last week which underscore hostility towards unemployment claimants in this economy. In the first, the Montgomery County Court of Appeals found that the claimant did not have a valid reason to resign her employment when she claimed that she was working 15 hours/day and she did not submit any evidence to substantiate that her physician had recommended that she resign for health reasons. Shaffer v. Dir., Dept. of Job & Family Servs., 2012-Ohio-844. In the second decision issued yesterday, the Ashtabula County Court of Appeals found that a city employer had just cause to terminate in 2009 the employment of a maintenance employee it hired in 2001 because he falsified his criminal history on his 2001 job application even though the City had been aware of the falsification since 2006 and failed to act on it until 2009. Ashtabula v. Rivas, 2012-Ohio-865.
In the first case, the employee contended that she had been assigned an unreasonable amount of work, had been denied assistance and resigned only after her physician insisted. However, her former manager testified that she had only been assigned half of the work that she claimed, and insisted that she had been provided assistance when she requested it. Indeed, she had been given a two-week vacation during the busiest time of the year. Moreover, the claimant had failed to bring a statement from her physician (or her physician) to confirm the medical reason for her resignation. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review rejected her argument: "If Appellant ultimately required a less-stressful position, she had a duty to inquire about other reasonable solutions before voluntarily resigning her position with only two weeks left of the "busy season." The trial and appellate court found that there was evidence introduced at the hearing to support the UCBR's findings and the denial of her unemployment compensation application was not unreasonable under the circumstances.
In the second case, the maintenance worker had been hired in 2001 after he falsely denied having a criminal conviction in his past. In 2006, after he plead guilty to, among other things, telephone harassment, the pre-sentence report revealed that he had two felony convictions in New Jersey which pre-dated his employment with the City. The probation officer notified the City Solicitor about the felony convictions and spoke with the City Administrator about the effect the guilty plea would have on his employment. The City Attorney contended that he had forwarded information about the felony conviction to the City Administrator, but no investigation was conducted. In 2009, the employee sought a transfer to another position which required a criminal background check. At that point, the Police Chief notified the City Administrator of the employee's unsuitability for the position and the City Administrator then terminated the employee for falsifying his 2001 job application. The City Administrator contended that 2009 was the first he learned about the employee's falsification. The UCBR and trial court agreed that there was not just cause to terminate an employee for falsifying a job application when the City had possessed the knowledge for approximately three years before terminating the employee. The unreasonable delay in terminating the employee meant that he could receive unemployment compensation. However, the Court of Appeals reversed. The Court found that the two plus year delay in terminating the employee was not unreasonable "because the record demonstrated appellant willingly and voluntarily falsified the application in direct violation of a known city policy," and thus was at fault for his termination.
He was not a casualty of a random economic downturn or the victim of a coincidental staffing cut. To the contrary, the record is clear: Mr. Rivas was the engine of his own termination. Because he voluntarily falsified information on his application knowing such an act could result in his discharge, he was at fault for his own circumstances.
NOTICE: This summary is designed merely to inform and alert you of recent legal developments. It does not constitute legal advice and does not apply to any particular situation because different facts could lead to different results. Information here can change or be amended without notice. Readers should not act upon this information without legal advice. If you have any questions about anything you have read, you should consult with or retain an employment attorney.
