Lebow v. Commercial Tire, Inc.
| Decision Date | 01 August 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. 41234.,41234. |
| Citation | 336 P.3d 786,157 Idaho 379 |
| Court | Idaho Supreme Court |
| Parties | Chance M. LEBOW, Claimant–Appellant, v. COMMERCIAL TIRE, INC., Major Base Employer; Idaho Department of Labor, Defendants–Respondents, and Right Now, Inc., Employer, Defendant. |
Chance M. LeBow, Meridian, pro se appellant.
Hon. Lawrence G. Wasden, Attorney General, Boise, for respondent Idaho Department of Labor.
ON THE BRIEFS
Chance LeBow (Claimant), proceeding pro se, appeals from the Industrial Commission's decision holding that he quit his job with Right Now, Inc. (Employer) without good cause and that Claimant willfully failed to report material facts for the purpose of collecting unemployment benefits. We affirm.
On November 19, 2012, Claimant was laid off from Commercial Tire, Inc., due to lack of work. On November 20, 2012, Claimant filed for unemployment benefits and received a weekly benefit of $343.00.
On November 26, 2012, Claimant had an interview with Employer and was offered a position in Employer's apprenticeship program,1 which paid eight dollars per hour and would begin December 3, 2012. During Claimant's interview, Employer explained to Claimant that his position would be on an on-call basis and that Claimant would be called in for work based upon the Employer's need for labor. Claimant accepted the position. Claimant began work on December 3, 2012. Claimant worked for eleven hours on December 3, 2012, and earned $88.00. Claimant did not receive a call to work the next two days. On December 5, 2012, Claimant went to Employer's office to discuss why he was not being called, and Employer informed Claimant that he would likely have work the next day. The following morning, Employer called Claimant to inform Claimant that he was needed on an assignment. Claimant verbally accepted the assignment but never showed for work. On December 6, 2012, Claimant was offered a job with Pizza Hut, delivering pizzas, for 10–25 hours per week, but the job did not commence until December 19, 2012.
On December 9, 2012, Claimant filed a continued claim for unemployment benefits for the week ending December 8, 2012, and reported that he had not worked the previous week, despite working eleven hours with Employer and earning $88.00 on December 3.
A work force consultant with the Department of Labor, Leyla Barthlome, discovered that Claimant failed to report his earnings from December 3, 2012, when she compared a new hire verification form submitted by Employer with Claimant's claim for continued unemployment benefits. Barthlome issued two eligibility determinations on February 25, 2013, which concluded that Claimant was not eligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to accept suitable work and that Claimant willfully made false statements and/or failed to report a material fact. As a result, the Department determined that Claimant had received overpayment of unemployment benefits in the amount of $1,372.00. On March 4, 2013, Claimant filed a request for an appeals hearing.
On March 12, 2013, the Department served the parties a notice of telephonic hearing. The notice stated that the scheduled hearing was to determine:
(1) Whether the claimant's unemployment is due to failure without good cause to apply for available suitable work or to accept suitable work when offered, according to § 72–1366(6) and (7) ... (2) whether the claimant made a false statement or willfully failed to report a material fact in order to obtain unemployment insurance benefits, according to § 72–1366(12) ... (3) whether the claimant is subject to a (25%/50%/100%) civil penalty as a result of having made a false statement or failed to report a material fact according to § 72–1369(2) ... (5) whether the claimant has received benefits to which s/he was not entitled, and if so, whether the requirement to repay benefits ... may be waived.
On March 27, 2013, a Department appeals examiner conducted a hearing and issued a decision on the same day. The appeals examiner held that: (1) Claimant's benefits are denied effective December 2, 2012, because Claimant quit without good cause under Idaho Code section 72–1366(5) ; (2) Claimant willfully failed to report a material fact or made a false statement or representation in order to obtain unemployment benefits under Idaho Code section 72–1366(12) ; (3) Claimant received benefits to which the Claimant was not entitled; and, (4) Claimant's obligation to repay the overpayment of benefits was not waived.
On April 8, 2013, Claimant timely appealed to the Commission. On June 10, 2013, the Commission issued its decision and order affirming the appeals examiner. The Commission held that: (1) a new hearing to admit additional evidence offered by Claimant was not warranted; (2) Claimant had a fair hearing and ample opportunity to present evidence; (3) Claimant did not quit his job for good cause; (4) Claimant was not entitled to benefits for fifty-two weeks because he willfully failed to report a material fact in order to obtain benefits; (5) Claimant was not entitled to a waiver of repayment because he wilfully made false statements and/or failed to report material facts to the Department. The Commission ordered Claimant to repay the benefits he was not entitled to plus a 25% civil penalty. On July 19, 2010, Claimant timely filed a notice of appeal with this Court.
Although Claimant identifies the only issue on appeal as whether the Commission erred in its decision, we deem it appropriate to address three issues that appear to have been presented in Claimant's argument:
When reviewing decisions of the Industrial Commission, this Court is limited to reviewing questions of law. Idaho Const. Art. V, § 9 ; Pimley v. Best Values, Inc., 132 Idaho 432, 434, 974 P.2d 78, 80 (1999). This Court will not disturb factual findings supported by substantial and competent evidence. Frank v. Bunker Hill Co., 142 Idaho 126, 130, 124 P.3d 1002, 1006 (2005). Where there is conflicting evidence, but the findings of the Commission are supported by substantial, competent evidence, the findings "must be sustained regardless of whether this Court may have reached a different conclusion." Harris v. Electrical Wholesale, 141 Idaho 1, 3, 105 P.3d 267, 269 (2004).
Huff v. Singleton, 143 Idaho 498, 500, 148 P.3d 1244, 1246 (2006). "This Court adheres to the rule that persons acting pro se are held to the same standards and rules as those represented by attorneys." Id. (citing Suitts v. Nix, 141 Idaho 706, 709, 117 P.3d 120, 123 (2005) ).
Claimant makes two separate fairness arguments. First, Claimant argues that the Commission could not have made a fair decision because of factual inaccuracies in the record. Second, Claimant argues that he was denied a fair hearing because the Commission did not consider additional evidence offered by Claimant. This Court has held that under 42 U.S.C. § 503(a)(3) all individuals whose claims for unemployment compensation are denied are entitled to "a fair hearing, before an impartial tribunal." Fouste v. Dep't of Emp't, 97 Idaho 162, 167 n. 11, 540 P.2d 1341, 1346 n. 11 (1975).
Claimant asserts that the Commission "couldn't make a fair decision based on the incorrect facts that were reported by case manager Leyla Barthlome." Claimant points to Exhibit 9 and Exhibit 12 to support his contention that factual inaccuracies deprived him of a fair hearing. As to Exhibit 9, Claimant argues that he could not have refused to work on December 6, 2012, as the appeals examiner found, because Exhibit 9 states that Claimant was terminated on December 5, 2012. As to Exhibit 12, a digital script generated by the Department, Claimant contends that three "clerical errors" exist. First, the script lists December 5, 2012, as the date he was offered his position with Employer, when in fact Claimant accepted the position the last week of November. Second, the script indicates that Claimant's start date with Employer was February 25, 2013, when in fact it was December 3, 2012. Third, the script indicates that Claimant was paid for his labor with Employer on February 14, 2012, nearly ten months prior to him completing eleven hours of work with Employer on December 3, 2012.
The Commission stated, "[w]hile Claimant seems to question the date and manner that Employer offered him the additional assignment, what is not in dispute is that Claimant accepted the assignment but failed to show up for work." "Alleged errors regarding irrelevant facts are not a ground for setting aside the Commission's order, and therefore they need not be addressed on appeal." Fife v. Home Depot, Inc., 151 Idaho 509, 515, 260 P.3d 1180, 1186 (2011).
It is evident that Exhibit 12, the digital script, is factually inaccurate in several respects. However, the date Claimant was offered his job, the date Claimant was to commence work, and the date Claimant received payment for his labor are irrelevant because they have no influence whatsoever on the issues presented in this appeal or on appeal to the Commission. The inaccuracies contained in Exhibit 9 are similarly irrelevant. Claimant seeks to establish that he could not have verbally accepted work from Employer on December 6, 2012, because documentation from the Employer, Exhibit 9, indicates he was terminated on December 5, 2012. However, Claimant's testimony before the appeals examiner was that on December 6, 2012, at 8:30 am, Employer called him into work, but that Claimant decided not to go...
To continue reading
Request your trial