Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security
| Decision Date | 04 April 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 190-77,190-77 |
| Citation | 136 Vt. 72,385 A.2d 1080 |
| Court | Vermont Supreme Court |
| Parties | Eileen B. KAUFMAN v. DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY. |
Eileen B. Kaufman, pro se.
Michael F. Ryan, Montpelier, for defendant.
Before BARNEY, C. J., and DALEY, LARROW, BILLINGS and HILL, JJ.
The appellant, Eileen Kaufman, filed for unemployment compensation. After hearing, the claims examiner found that she had been discharged for misconduct and disqualified her for benefits from the week ending November 27, 1976, through the week ending January 15, 1977. From this determination Ms. Kaufman appealed to the referee, who gave notice of a hearing concerning "Discharge from Employment." A hearing was held, findings made, and the appeals referee sustained the determination of the claims examiner.
Ms. Kaufman appealed to the Board on their form D-150 (6/74) citing as the reason for disqualification "Discharge for Misconduct Section 1344." In a written appendix setting forth her differences with the findings of the appeals referee, appellant asked the board to find that "my actions did not amount to misconduct under 21 V.S.A. 1344." The board, after notice, held a hearing. They also made findings of fact. From such findings, they concluded that "claimant was not discharged for misconduct but rather she left her last employing unit voluntarily without good cause attributable to such employing unit." Their decision modified the referee's decision and disqualified the appellant
The new penalty was substantially harsher than that handed down by the claims examiner and sustained by the referee.
Appellant here contends that the board's decision changing the characterization of her termination from discharge for misconduct to voluntary quit was a deprivation of due process as guaranteed by the Constitutions of Vermont and the United States.
The board has the power to affirm, modify or reverse the decision of the referee. 21 V.S.A. § 1349. In the exercise of this function, however, it cannot violate fundamental principles of fairness. 21 V.S.A. § 1351.
A fair hearing requires either proper notice of the issues to be heard or a basis in the record to show an informed and intelligent waiver of the same. Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So. 2d 20, 21 (Fla. Dist. Ct....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wilson v. Labor and Indus. Relations Com'n of Mo., Div. of Employment Sec.
...57 Pa.Cmwlth. 422, 426 A.2d 247 (Pa.Cmwlth.Ct.1981); Fournier v. State, 121 N.H. 283, 428 A.2d 1238 (1981); Kaufman v. Dept. of Emp. Sec., 136 Vt. 72, 385 A.2d 1080 (1978); White v. Idaho Forest Industries, 98 Idaho 784, 572 P.2d 887 (1977); Lewis v. Hot Shoppes, 211 So.2d 20 The circuit co......
-
Harrington v. Department of Employment Sec., 334-81
...Whitchurch v. Department of Employment Security, 139 Vt. 566, 568, 433 A.2d 284, 286 (1981); Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 72, 74, 385 A.2d 1080, 1082 (1978). When dealing with allegations relating to new evidence, and "[w]here the tribunal itself declares that state......
-
City of Burlington v. Department of Employment and Training
...see Call v. Department of Employment Security, 138 Vt. 52, 55, 411 A.2d 1336, 1338 (1980) (citing Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 72, 74, 385 A.2d 1080, 1082 (1978)), coming as close as is practicable to replicating what the parties' respective positions in a pre-asses......
-
Call v. Department of Employment Sec., 143-79
...held that fundamental principles of fairness require proper notice of the issues to be heard. Kaufman v. Department of Employment Security, 136 Vt. 72, 74, 385 A.2d 1080, 1082 (1978) (per curiam). This rule is to ensure that claimants are sufficiently forewarned of the grounds for terminati......