Sheehan v. Dept. of Employment & Training, No. 98-197.

Docket NºNo. 98-197.
Citation733 A.2d 88
Case DateJune 11, 1999
CourtUnited States State Supreme Court of Vermont

733 A.2d 88

Peter SHEEHAN, et al., t/a G & S Forest Products
v.
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT AND TRAINING

No. 98-197.

Supreme Court of Vermont.

June 11, 1999.


733 A.2d 89
Peter W. Sheehan, Pro Se, Perkinsville, Plaintiff-Appellant

Brooke Pearson, Montpelier, for Defendant-Appellee.

Present AMESTOY, C.J., DOOLEY, MORSE, JOHNSON and SKOGLUND, JJ.

MORSE, J.

Employer G & S Forest Products appeals from the Employment Security Board's decision sustaining the Department of Employment and Training's August 8, 1997 successor status determination.1 In its appeal, employer seeks to challenge the Department's May 7, 1996 successor status determination with respect to employer's purchase of another business. Because the May 7, 1996 determination was upheld in an earlier Board decision from which employer failed to file a timely notice of appeal, we conclude that the doctrine of collateral estoppel precludes employer from challenging that determination in this appeal. Accordingly, we affirm the Board's decision.

As best as we can tell from the record and sporadic factual history related in the parties' briefs, Peter and Susan Sheehan and another couple, the Goodriches, were partners who operated a business called G & S Forest Products. The Department assigned employer a contribution rate of 0.6% for the 1995-1996 fiscal year. In April 1996, employer stated in the Department's status report forms that it had acquired the entire business formerly known as Palmer H. Goodrich II/P & L Trucking. On May 7, 1996, the Department notified employer by letter that G & S Forest Products was designated as a successor to Palmer H. Goodrich II as of April 1, 1996. The letter stated that (1) the predecessor's experience rating record would be transferred to and combined with that of the successor; (2) the successor's assigned contribution rate would not change during the remainder of that fiscal year, but effective July 1, 1996 the successor's rate would be based on the combined experience rating records of the successor and predecessor; (3) the successor's experience rating record might be charged with benefits paid to individuals based on wages earned from the predecessor; and (4) if either the successor or predecessor disagreed with the successor status determination, either employer could petition for a hearing before a referee within thirty days of that notice. Employer did not seek to contest the notice of successor status determination contained in the letter.

On June 25, 1996, the Department sent employer a notice stating that its contribution rate for fiscal year 1996-1997 would

733 A.2d 90
be 5.3%. Employer appealed that determination first to the appeals referee and then the Board. The referee noted in his decision that employer objected to having inherited the experience rating record of Palmer H. Goodrich II, but ruled that the rating was final because the employer had failed to appeal the Department's May 7, 1996 successor status determination. On April 4, 1997, the Board issued a decision upholding the appeals referee. The Board expressly stated that in reaching its decision it had carefully considered employer's arguments concerning the Department's successor status determination. In rejecting those arguments, the Board explained that the Department had determined that employer purchased Palmer H. Goodrich II/P & L Trucking, which had always been considered one and the same employer. The Board expressed its satisfaction that the Department's determination of the status of the companies involved was correct. The Board also noted that employer had failed to appeal the successor status determination in a timely manner. Employer appealed the Board's decision, but in December 1997, this Court dismissed that appeal as untimely filed

On June 25, 1997, the Department notified employer that its contribution rate...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 practice notes
  • EST. OF GEORGE v. LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS, No. 08-374.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 15 Enero 2010
    ...here because there has not yet been a final judgment on the merits. Cf. Sheehan v. Dep't of Employment & Training, 169 Vt. 304, 308, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999) (doctrine of collateral estoppel "bars the subsequent relitigation of an issue which was actually litigated and decided in a p......
  • Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology, No. 04-0931.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 2 Mayo 2008
    ...v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 846 P.2d 1245, 1251 n. 4 (Utah 1992); Sheehan v. Dep't of Empl. & Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1989); In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 978 P.2d 1083, 1090 (1999); Liller v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 180 W.Va. 43......
  • Ernst v. Kauffman, Case No. 5:14–cv–59.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...to an administrative proceeding if the agency was acting in a judicial capacity. Sheehan v. Dep't of Emp't and Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999). In this case, there is no evidence that plaintiffs raised their VFHA claim before the environmental court. Moreover, the environmenta......
  • Ernst v. Kauffman, Case No. 5:14–cv–59.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...to an administrative proceeding if the agency was acting in a judicial capacity. Sheehan v. Dep't of Emp't and Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999). In this case, there is no evidence that plaintiffs raised their VFHA claim before the environmental court. Moreover, the environmenta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results
9 cases
  • EST. OF GEORGE v. LEAGUE OF CITIES & TOWNS, No. 08-374.
    • United States
    • Vermont United States State Supreme Court of Vermont
    • 15 Enero 2010
    ...here because there has not yet been a final judgment on the merits. Cf. Sheehan v. Dep't of Employment & Training, 169 Vt. 304, 308, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999) (doctrine of collateral estoppel "bars the subsequent relitigation of an issue which was actually litigated and decided in a p......
  • Igal v. Brightstar Information Technology, No. 04-0931.
    • United States
    • Supreme Court of Texas
    • 2 Mayo 2008
    ...v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel. Co., 846 P.2d 1245, 1251 n. 4 (Utah 1992); Sheehan v. Dep't of Empl. & Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1989); In re Personal Restraint of Gronquist, 138 Wash.2d 388, 978 P.2d 1083, 1090 (1999); Liller v. W. Va. Human Rights Comm'n, 180 W.Va. 43......
  • Ernst v. Kauffman, Case No. 5:14–cv–59.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...to an administrative proceeding if the agency was acting in a judicial capacity. Sheehan v. Dep't of Emp't and Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999). In this case, there is no evidence that plaintiffs raised their VFHA claim before the environmental court. Moreover, the environmenta......
  • Ernst v. Kauffman, Case No. 5:14–cv–59.
    • United States
    • United States District Courts. 2nd Circuit. District of Vermont
    • 30 Septiembre 2014
    ...to an administrative proceeding if the agency was acting in a judicial capacity. Sheehan v. Dep't of Emp't and Training, 169 Vt. 304, 733 A.2d 88, 91 (1999). In this case, there is no evidence that plaintiffs raised their VFHA claim before the environmental court. Moreover, the environmenta......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT