Griffith v. J.C. Penney Co., Inc.

• Decision Date: 18 June 1986
• Citation: 493 N.E.2d 959,24 OBR 304,24 Ohio St.3d 112
• Parties: , 24 O.B.R. 304 GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. J.C. PENNEY CO., INC. et al.; Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Emp. Serv., Appellee.
• Court: Ohio Supreme Court

Page 112

24 Ohio St.3d 112

493 N.E.2d 959, 24 O.B.R. 304

GRIFFITH, Appellant, v. J.C. PENNEY CO., INC. et al.; Administrator, Ohio Bureau of Emp. Serv., Appellee.

Supreme Court of Ohio.

June 18, 1986.

Appellant, Lanny K. Griffith, applied for unemployment compensation after he was terminated from his job at the J.C. Penney Company, Inc., Distribution Center. On July 25, 1983, the Ohio Bureau of Employment Services ("OBES") disallowed Griffith's application. The notification form Griffith received from OBES contained the following information:

"APPEAL RIGHTS: If you think this determination is incorrect as to fact or law, or if you have additional facts which might affect the determination, you may file a request for reconsideration in person at any bureau office. You will be given assistance in preparing your written request. If you desire, you may write directly to the local office in which the claim is filed. To be considered timely, your request must be filed in person or postmarked no later than fourteen calendar days after the date entered in item 6 on this form. * * * " (Emphasis added.)

Griffith gave the following testimony at his hearing before the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review: On August 5, 1983, Griffith went to the OBES office and told an OBES employee that he wanted to appeal. The employee gave Griffith a blank "Request for Reconsideration" form. Griffith asked the employee if he could take the form home and mail it back after formulating his reasons for seeking review and having the form typed. He anticipated that it would take a week for him to complete the form. The employee replied that this would not be a problem. She then date-stamped the form for August 5, 1983 and said that this would "cover" him. Griffith believed at this point that the time requirement for his appeal had been satisfied.

Griffith's completed Request for Reconsideration form was received by OBES on August 29, 1983, thirty-five days after the administrator's decision had been mailed. The administrator dismissed the request as untimely, and the dismissal was upheld by the board of review. This decision was affirmed by the Court of Common Pleas of Franklin County. The court of appeals affirmed the trial court.

The court of appeals, finding its judgment to be in conflict with that of the Court of Appeals for Mahoning County in Ruozzo v. Giles (1982), 6 Ohio App.3d 8, 451 N.E.2d 519, certified the record of the case to this court for review and final determination on the following question:

"Whether or not the doctrine of estoppel applies against the state to extend the time within which an employee has to file an administrative appeal, where the employee is properly notified in writing by the state agency of the time limit for filing an appeal, but subsequently receives and relies upon the mistaken advice of a state employee that the time limit can be extended."

Sue Livensparger, Legal Aid Society of Columbus, Thomas W. Weeks and Ohio State Legal Services Assn., Columbus, for appellant.

Anthony J. Celebrezze, Jr., Atty. Gen., and Patrick A. Devine, Columbus, for appellee Administrator.

Lackey, Nusbaum, Harris, Reny & Torzewski, Gerald Lackey, Toledo, Richard W. McHugh and Jordan Rossen, Detroit, Mich., urging reversal for amicus curiae, International Union, U.A.W.

Carolyn L. Carter and Anita Myerson, Cleveland, urging reversal for amicus curiae, Cleveland Council of Unemployed Workers.

Robert M. Clyde, Youngstown, urging reversal for amicus curiae, United Steelworkers of America, Local 1418.

PER CURIAM.

R.C. 4141.28(G)(1) provides claimants with the right to request reconsideration of the denial of an application for unemployment benefits. A request for reconsideration must be filed within fourteen days after the notice of the denial was mailed. R.C. 4141.28(G)(1). Absent this statute, no such right of appeal would exist. See Ford v. Indus. Comm. (1945), 145 Ohio St. 1, 4, 60 N.E.2d 471 . This court has consistently held that when a statute confers a right of appeal, the appeal can only be perfected in the manner prescribed by that statute. See McCruter v. Bd. of Review (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 277, 279, 415 N.E.2d 259 ; Holmes v. Union Gospel Press (1980), 64 Ohio St.2d 187, 188...