How can i win unemployment benefits from a bully willing to lie.
I walked out after 10.5 years with this doctor,fed up with his abuse..He's a bull dog & a liar...& very legally savvy, but it's my word against his...
Am I allowed to use letters from prior patient & former staff regarding his temper.
Response For: How can i win unemployment benefits from a bully willing to lie.
Given that I don't know which state you think you'd be having to attend an unemployment appeal hearing in .. and given that I don't even know if you were denied or allowed to get unemployment .. here's what I can tell you about he said/she said .. or any combination thereof .. situations.
They suck usually for the employee.
It comes down to the testimony believed to be most credible. Clearly, you already think you're at a disadvantage given your description of your former boss.
This is just another reason I believe being represented at the hearing
is one of the most important decisions you should make. I mean this isn't a discharge for attendance where you can simply offer all the doctor notes you brought into your employer .. including the one for the final incident (something very important to consider when unemployment benefits are involved.)
Now let's move on to letters
confirming the temper of your doctor boss and some other things .. like "I walked out after 10.5 years.
You quit .. you have to prove why and that any reasonable person would do the same in a similar situation.
The longer you tolerate redundant crap .. the less reasonable you become to some objective third parties. They may assume your willingness to stay is indication that you are now just overstating the dreadfulness for purposes of getting benefits.
Yet, as employees we are normally at least required to attempt to "preserve" the job first if we hope to get UI benefits.
Weird how sometimes,
what we must do, can also work against us.
As for the letters .. documentation without direct testimony is .. or at least should be, given less weight. You'll find the specific in a states rules for administrative procedures .. which usually has a section about rules of evidence.
A statement without direct testimony basically becomes hearsay and in some states would not be allowed into evidence at all unless that person were also a witness because it can create prejudice and there's no way for the opposing side to cross examine a document.
However, when the person also shows up to testify about their statement .. that barrier is removed and becomes corroborative and if I'm not mistaken becomes part of that phrase used all the time in decisions .. preponderance of the credible testimony and evidence.
Better you have someone who might be able to provoke a witness into showing their true colors.
This does happen at hearings all the time .. and the horse's ass isn't always the employee.
It's just a fact of life .. they exist everywhere with all different levels of authority.
However, what's really important to remember is that you're the one that quit .. therefore the burden of proof is yours .. and I myself would not feel comfortable relying only on written statements.
If necessary, I'd rather have a rep to cross examine and take testimony from all witnesses .. including any I might have to subpoena .. that might also be considered a hostile witness because they fear for the future of their own job???
As far as the patients go .. maybe if you had the testimony of a co-worker or two .. those statements alone might now be more valuable .. as far as weighting your fulfillment of your burden of proof.The Disclaimer is a link in the footer of every page on this site.