by Kyle Johnson
The Kentucky Court of Appeals recently upheld the denial of unemployment benefits to an employee who had exhausted his leave entitlement under the Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) and was unable to return to work. The court upheld the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission’s (KUIC) determination that those circumstances constitute “quitting” employment without “good cause.”
|
Facts
“Harvey” worked as a registered nurse at Jewish Hospital. In September 2011, he took FMLA leave for a medical condition that wasn’t related to his job. He returned to work on November 29, after using almost all of his FMLA leave time.
On December 29, 2011, Harvey underwent elective foot surgery. He didn’t seek prior approval for any leave to cover the absence needed for his recovery. He expected to be off work until January 30, 2012, but was released from medical restrictions as of January 16.
On January 9, Jewish notified Harvey that it could no longer hold his position open. The hospital hadn’t heard from him since December 28, and his FMLA leave entitlement had been exhausted shortly after that date. Under its policies, Jewish placed Harvey on “inactive” status and gave him 30 days to find other employment within the hospital. However, he couldn’t find an available position.
Harvey filed for unemployment benefits. He was granted benefits and eventually received 4 weeks of unemployment payments. However, the Kentucky Division of Unemployment Insurance subsequently determined that he had voluntarily quit his job without good cause attributable to his employment and disqualified him from receiving benefits. He appealed his disqualification.
Harvey was the sole participant at the referee hearing; Jewish officials didn’t participate or otherwise contest his benefits. The referee affirmed the decision to deny him benefits. When Harvey appealed that ruling, the KUIC also denied him benefits. He then appealed to the Jefferson Circuit Court.
The court upheld the KUIC’s decision, ruling that the commission’s findings of fact were properly supported by evidence and the KUIC correctly applied the law to those facts. Harvey then asked the Kentucky Court of Appeals to review his case.
Court’s Decision
Harvey argued to the court of appeals that he never voluntarily “quit” his job. Instead, he claimed that his medical condition “forced” him out of his position, a circumstance that can never constitute a “voluntary” quit.
He also argued that the evidence he submitted to the referee, the KUIC, and the Jefferson Circuit Court was adequate to support his version of events and his legal argument. Thus, according to him, those fact finders all reached improper conclusions. The court of appeals rejected his arguments and upheld the denial of benefits.
First, the court rejected Harvey’s claim that an illness-based separation from employment could never be voluntary. The unemployment statute contains no such limitation, and according to the court, “[We] simply cannot countenance such an expansive view. To do so would foist a virtually insurmountable burden on all employers, a burden obviously not deemed appropriate by the [l]egislature as [it] was not included in the statutory language.”
Next, the court noted that “[courts] have no authority to consider evidence outside the record or to incorporate new proof into the record. Thus, like the trial court, we are constrained to consider only the evidence presented to the [r]eferee to determine the propriety of the decision to deny Harvey unemployment benefits.”
Likewise, the court noted that when evidence—even contested evidence—supports the decision made by the KUIC, “the fact that [we] may not have come to the same conclusion regarding the same findings of fact does not warrant substitution of [our] discretion for that of an administrative agency.”
In short, the referee found Harvey’s testimony and evidence unconvincing and concluded that he voluntarily left his employment without good cause attributable to his work. The KUIC agreed. The evidence could arguably support a different conclusion, but that does not render the decision improper under the law.
The court reiterated, “The task of the court in an administrative matter is one of review, not reinterpretation. Because the [r]eferee received and relied upon substantial evidence of probative value to support its decision, we are without authority to alter that determination.”
Bottom Line
This case underscores the importance of the referee hearing in an unemployment case. If there is evidence to be considered, it must be presented to the referee. Unless the KUIC later asks for additional evidence, the referee hearing is the only time evidence can be submitted.
Likewise, the referee needs to be persuaded to use the evidence to make favorable findings of fact. Even the best argument to later view the evidence differently will not be accepted. Plan your referee hearing accordingly.
For more information on this topic, please contact Kyle Johnson, an editor of Kentucky Employment Law Letter, at kjohnson@fbtlaw.com.