Appealed a Denial of Unemployment After Being Fired for Sexual Harassment

I read the original question again and felt it important to mention why a dismissal wasn’t in order.

This was a claimant appeal on an initial denial of benefits for a discharge for misconduct.

Had the ALJ dismissed the claimant’s appeal on the grounds the employer didn’t have first hand testimony, it would likely of been a blatant disregard of the rules of procedures for such hearings and now we’d be discussing a very strong additional reason for why the claimant who lost, would want to appeal to the UI board of review in even Indiana.

Dismissing the claimant’s appeal would of been procedurally incorrect to affect the claimant’s right to due process ..

Since the lower level hearing is the full fact finder and is required even to reverse an erroneous initial denial. Regardless if it was hearsay testimony from an employer, fully exploring is a matter for the ALJ to properly give less weight to hearsay when comparing it to direct first hand testimony of the claimant who was first sexually harassed and discharged .. only after making the attempt to get that problem resolved .. and in this person’s case .. to no avail from an unreasonable employer.

But you’re right .. this is why I recommend hearing representation .. when possible.

I agree with your assessment.

I didn’t check to see how old, but given the Indiana recipiency chart I used as an image .. it was likely about two years ago since the chart was meant to demonstrate just how much UI recipiency had dropped and I was somewhat peeved at the time when I read that Indiana was now assigning the burden to the party who is supposed to be objective and unbiased toward both parties at the hearing .. given Indiana really is an employer friendly state.

As for what’s hearsay and what may be an exception to the rule is state specific to the state’s rules of procedure for administrative law hearings of this type.

It’s also why I asked about an actual investigation by HR .. since that is a method to used by some employers to get around an objection to their testimony being hearsay.

Also, when I’m told there was an admission by a witness from HR during the hearing that the claimant did come to them with the complaint .. but they still didn’t investigate .. I start thinking if it was that old standby strategy that may of been for no other reason than for the purpose of protecting the companies interest beyond the scope of UIBs.

If it’s not written down .. documented, can anything really of happened if nobody writes about it.

Or .. if it isn’t written down anywhere by anybody .. did it really happen.

It’s like the old question — If a tree falls in the forest …………….

I’m not sure of how old this post is but HAD to comment.

This is why people need to get a lawyer for uc appeal hearings.

A knowledgeable person would of immediately objected and motion to dismiss because NO ONE had first hand knowledge or was present at time incident occurred. This is all HEARSAY and must be dismissed.

And it wouldn’t be speculation based on guessin’ and by gollyin’, but past off the record conversations that cropped up in the course of what I once did while dealing with unemployment hearings.

But what’s the point if it’s irrelevant to you particular case for benefits .. which seems to of been a quite hasty and ill-prepared termination with actual proof .. and first hand testimony to prop a document up to be more credible.

Like I said, in my opinion, that would of been a hearing that left me wanting docs to submit for the employer.

It happened enough that here when speaking to claimants .. I often ask, Do you know if the employer has docs that may prove the burden of being the moving party. If no docs to prove you definitely guilty ..exploit that weakness for all it’s worth. And when they do, and you know it, it’s time to call upon any sense of common you have and weigh your option .. or spy a different path that might work .. because unemployment hearing decisions in all states really do explain how unemployment is intended to work what path (basic argument by the way) once worked for some unemployed people in the past.

Thank you Chris. This entire incident’s evidence seems to be an email from a shift boss that basically said someone told him I allegedly made the comments about a “few” individuals. Few? He also wrote he did not witness this but named supervisor as the main witness and a “few” others. This email was sent to HR on a Sun night and I was fired the next day. How could they have investigated anything?
All HR wrote was that I (alledgedly) made a comment about one particular gay man and this offended the two women who allegedly heard me.