Unemployment Compensation Awarded When Poor Performance Related to Substantially New Job Duties

 Earlier this month, a unanimous Ohio Court of Appeals reversed the denial of unemployment compensation to a terminated employee on the grounds that it was not just cause to fire the employee because of problems in performing newly assigned job duties.  New Carlisle v. Pratt, 2015-Ohio-1398.   Moreover, the trial court had failed to explain the basis of its decision denying the benefits and there was evidence in the record to support the Review Commission’s decision to award benefits.   Finally, the Court refused to consider arguments that the claimant had falsified records when that argument had not been raised until the evidentiary hearing.

According to the Court’s decision, the claimant had been assigned new environmental recordkeeping and inspection duties approximately two years after he had been hired.  Those duties were not performed or reassigned when he was off work. The Ohio EPA had already noted that the employer was understaffed when it assigned these duties to the claimant.  Following progressive discipline for other issues, he was ultimately terminated for failing to properly perform these newly assigned duties.   After his termination, these inspection and recordkeeping duties were divided among his replacement and other employee.  After an evidentiary hearing, the referee granted benefits, but a trial court reversed that decision on appeal.  This appeal followed.

An employee is not entitled to unemployment compensation if he was terminated for just cause in connection with his work.  An employer typically will have just cause to terminate an employee who does not properly perform his job duties if

(1) the employee does not perform the required work, (2) the employer made known its expectations of the employee at the time of hiring, (3) the expectations were reasonable, and (4) the requirements of the job did not change substantially since the date of the original hiring for that particular position.

 

In this case, the employee showed that his job had changed substantially since when he was hired and that it was the substantial change that led to his termination.   While the employer attempted to argue that he had always been responsible for these inspections and recordkeeping, there was no evidence that he had performed them until more than two years into his job and only after the OEPA brought up the issue.

 

The Court also rejected the newly asserted ground of dishonesty as showing just cause for termination because the referee found the claimant to be credible and the employer failed to raise this as an issue until the evidentiary hearing. “A just-cause determination cannot be based on a reason never stated by the employer as a justification for discharge.”  The failure to raise the argument earlier also constituted a waiver of that argument:

 

The City, therefore, has waived such an argument. “ ‘The rule compelling a party to present all legitimate issues before the administrative tribunal is required in order to preserve the integrity of the proceedings before that body and to endow them with a dignity beyond that of a mere shadow-play.’ ”

 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 be changed or 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.