4/27/2012

1

Texas Workforce CommissionHearings: Winning the BattleHearings: Winning the Battle

But Losing the War

Presented by: Elizabeth M. ProvencioDenton, Navarro, Rocha & Bernal, P. C. 

elizabeth.provencio@rampage‐sa.com

2517 North Main, San Antonio,  Texas  78212(210)227‐3243 Phone; (210)225‐4481 Facsimile

What Are We Talking About? Employment Separation (termination, resignation in Employment Separation (termination, resignation in lieu of termination, etc.) 

Ex‐Employee applies for unemployment with the TWC

Employer disputes entitlement or employee disputes denial

TWC holds a hearing (sworn testimony and g yeverything) to determine entitlement

4/27/2012

2

• Discrimination and retaliation EEOC charges may be anticipatedbe anticipated

• Unemployment administrative hearing—testimony is sworn record (opportunity for direct and cross examination, all would be admissible in subsequent suit)

• TWC or EEOC process—position papers  affidavits  TWC or EEOC process position papers, affidavits, documents, statements by management set the stage for any subsequent suit

Data noted by EEOC Following slides show reported data by the EEOCFollowing slides show reported data by the EEOC

Compares years 1997 (first year for data reported), 2005, 2011

Reasonable cause finding constituted 3.8% of all charges filed for 2011

No reasonable cause finding constituted 66.7% of all g 7charges filed for 2011

http://www.eeoc.gov/eeoc/statistics/enforcement/titlevii.cfm

4/27/2012

3

http://www.eeoc.gov//eeoc/statistics/enforcement/titlevii.cfm

4/27/2012

4

Goals:  Being prepared and consistent

M k   i  d i i   l  Make strategic decisions early on

Be thorough early on (responses, documents, witnesses, statements)

Prepare for the hearing (documents, witnesses, and potential cross‐examination)

Yes But

• This is only an yunemployment dispute, not discrimination.

• Why should we care about this now?

4/27/2012

5

Planning for the future

Understand consequences

Look into the future for potential litigation

Help prepare you for TWC hearing todatoday

Consequences While “[a] finding of fact, conclusion of law, 

The record created during a hearing is sworn conclusion of law, 

judgment, or final order” of the TWC may not be used as evidence in a lawsuit the sworn testimony and documents produced during the 

a hearing is sworn testimony and can be competent summary judgment evidence.  Fin. Ins. Co. v. Ragsdale, 166 S.W.3d 922, 927 (Tex. App.—El Paso 2005, no 

hearing can. Tex. Lab. Code § 213.007.

pet.)

4/27/2012

6

Biggest Risks Taking one position at the TWC and a different position during litigation = evidence of pretext may pre ent summar  judgment   B    El P  El  prevent summary judgment.  Bowen v. El Paso Elec. Co., 49 S.W.3d 902, 909 (Tex. App.‐‐El Paso 2001, pet. denied). 

Changing midstream questions credibility

Subjects your management to early cross‐i tiexamination

Whatever comes out of the hearing – you are stuck with when you return to the future (lawsuit)

The Process• Filing – did they meet the timelines

• TWC hearing – its recorded

• Decision

l• Appeal

4/27/2012

7

Texas Workforce CommissionUnemployment Administrative Appeal Hearings

Telephonic responses to TWC now become part of p p pthe record

Records maintained by employer Records supporting decision Sworn testimony

Opportunity for direct and cross examination Employee may have obtained an attorney Witnesses may be placed under “The Rule” by opposing party or Hearing Officer

Cannot rely on Hearing Officer to keep issues narrow during questioning

Appealing an Application for Unemployment Insurance www.texas.workforce.orgwww.texas.workforce.org

Prepare for an appeal

The Appeals Policy and Precedent Manual: reflects the rulings in precedent cases selected by the Commission to guide future decisions

4/27/2012

8

Was there “Misconduct”? 

Misconduct: Table of contents and Misconduct: Table of contents and sections 5 ‐ 600. This chapter details Commission precedents on claimants' eligibility for unemployment benefits in cases involving an allegation of in cases involving an allegation of employee misconduct. 

MisconductSection 201.012 of the Texas Unemployment p yCompensation Act states, “’Misconduct’ means mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction, neglect that jeopardizes the life or property of another, intentional wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure orderly work and the safety of employees.  The term ‘misconduct’ does not include an act in response to an unconscionable act of an employer or superior.”

4/27/2012

9

5. General

15. Absence5

45 Attitude toward employer

85. Connection with the work

90. Conscientious objection

135. Discharge or leaving

140 Dishonesty 140. Dishonesty

155. Domestic circumstances

190. Evidence

235. Health or physical condition

255. Insubordination

270. Intoxication and use of intoxicants

300.Manner of performing work

310. Neglect of duty

360. Personal affairs

385. Relation of offense to discharge3 5 g

390.Relations with fellow employees

435. Tardiness

450. Time

4/27/2012

10

475. Union relations

485.Violation of company rule

490.Violation of law

600.Wage demand

MC 5.00 GENERAL.

INCLUDES CASES CONTAINING (1) A GENERALDISCUSSION OF MISCONDUCT, IF THE POINTCANNOT BE HANDLED BY A SPECIFIC LINE (2)POINTS NOT COVERED BY ANY OTHER LINE INTHE MISCONDUCT DIVISION, OR (3) DECISIONSUNDER A STATUTORY PROVISION OTHER THANA MISCONDUCT PROVISION, WHICH DO,A MISCONDUCT PROVISION, WHICH DO,NEVERTHELESS, DECIDE THE FACT OF“MISCONDUCT” OR “DISCHARGE”.

4/27/2012

11

(Absence) Appeal No. 1403‐CA‐78. The employer’spersonnel policy provided a multi‐step disciplinaryprocedure for excessively absent employees, suchprocedure progressing in sequence upon theprocedure progressing in sequence, upon theoccurrence of each unexcused absence, from warningto counseling to disciplinary suspension to discharge.Upon the occasion of her next‐to‐last unexcusedabsence, the claimant was advised that, upon her nextunexcused absence, she would be suspended without

f fi d N th l h th l i tpay for five days. Nonetheless, when the claimant wasnext absent without excuse, she was discharged eventhough she had never been suspended as required bythe employer’s policy.

HELD: The employer did not comply with the termsof its own disciplinary procedure and the claimant didnot have the benefit of progression through therequired steps of the procedure prior to her discharge.Therefore, she did not feel that she would bedischarged on the occasion of her last absence. Theclaimant’s discharge without proper treatment undercompany policy was not for misconduct connectedcompany policy was not for misconduct connectedwith the work.

4/27/2012

12

(Probation) Appeal No. 96‐010354‐10‐090996. OnJune 14, 1996, the employer essentially placed theclaimant on probation, by advising her that she hadp y gthirty days to improve her performance as manager orshe would be terminated. On July 4, 1996, theemployer decided to terminate the claimant, ratherthan affording her the entire thirty day probationaryperiod, because the claimant’s performance did notimprove.improve.

HELD: If an employer determines during theprobationary period that an employee has committeda dischargeable offense or is not going to improve, thea dischargeable offense or is not going to improve, theemployer is not obligated to afford the employee theentire thirty day probationary period beforedischarging the employee. The scope of our review islimited to whether the incident prompting thedischarge would be considered misconduct connectedwith the work In this case the claimant’s failure towith the work. In this case, the claimant s failure toimprove her performance would be consideredmisconduct connected with the work.

4/27/2012

13

Discharge or Leaving.

Appeal No. 2028‐CA‐77. A claimant who resigns afterhaving been given a choice of resigning or beinghaving been given a choice of resigning or beingdischarged, will be treated, for the purposes of the lawof unemployment insurance, as having beendischarged and the question of whether or not theclaimant should be disqualified, due to thecircumstances surrounding her separation, will beconsidered under Section 207 044 of the Actconsidered under Section 207.044 of the Act.

(Doctor’s Note) Appeals No. 86‐04116‐10‐030487. Theclaimant was discharged after having missed work dueto an alleged illness. He presented a doctor’st t t t thi b b t th l i tstatement to excuse this absence but the claimantneither spoke to nor saw the doctor on the day inquestion. The employer’s policy required a validdoctor’s excuse for any absence due to illness.Previously, the claimant had been reprimanded andwarned that his attendance violations, includingunexcused absences, were jeopardizing his job.

4/27/2012

14

HELD: The claimant’s failure to produce adequate verification of his absence due to illness, after being , gwarned that his job was in jeopardy, was misconduct connected with the work.  The employer has a right to be provided with a doctor’s excuse that is based on the claimant’s actual contact with a doctor.

(Separation) Appeal No. 97‐006341‐10‐060597. In thehome health care referral industry, either the workeror the referral service may initiate reassignment. Inor the referral service may initiate reassignment. Inthis case, the claimant was removed from her currentassignment at her own request because she wasdissatisfied. When the employer offered claimantreassignment later that same week, claimant declinedbecause the only way she could get to the new client’shome was by bus The employer had never furnishedhome was by bus. The employer had never furnishedtransportation.

4/27/2012

15

HELD: Claimant’s separation occurred when sherefused reassignment, not when she requested

l f h l l ’ d l k fremoval from her previous client. Claimant’s dislike ofthe only available means of transportation—riding thebus—does not constitute good cause to leavevoluntarily, because transportation was claimant’sresponsibility. (Cross referenced at VL 150.20, VL510.40, and VL 515.90).5 5 5 9

Separation. Appeal No. 86‐02537‐10‐020587. On August 18, the claimant and other employees were 

bj t d t    t  l ff  d   t ld t   t  subjected to a temporary layoff and were told to return to work on September 2.  The claimant never returned and never called in to the employer.  She filed her initial claim on October 9.  

HELD: The claimant was separated from employment HELD: The claimant was separated from employment when the temporary layoff began.  As no misconduct was involved in that separation, no disqualification under Section 207.044. (Cross‐referenced under MC 135.30.)

4/27/2012

16

TWC Appeals Policy and Precedent Manual: Misconduct

Tardiness – failure to follow progressive discipline p g psupported finding that tardiness was not misconduct

Performance – employee given 30 days to improve performance but discharged prior to expiration of 30 days because employer determined employee was not improving held to be misconduct

Was There a “Voluntary Leaving”?

Voluntary Leaving: Sections 5 through 515.95. This Voluntary Leaving: Sections 5 through 515.95. This chapter details Commission precedents on claimant's eligibility for unemployment benefits in cases in which there is an allegation that a claimant has voluntarily left available work. 

4/27/2012

17

Voluntarily Leaving Work Section 207.045 of the Texas Unemployment 7 45 p yCompensation Act codified in the Texas Labor Code–sets out a disqualification if employee leaves without good cause connected with work

Excludes:  verified illness of the individual or minor child, injury, disability, pregnancy, 207.046 provisions, relocation in certain instances

Labor Code Section 207.046 Involuntary Separation An individual is qualified for benefits if:q

The work‐related reason for the employee’s separation from employment was urgent, compelling, and necessary so as to make the separation involuntary

The employee leaves to protect from family violence or stalking

The employee leaves to care for a terminally ill spouse if   bl   l i     il blno reasonable, alternative care available.

4/27/2012

18

5.   General

40.  Attendance at school or training course – students

70.  Citizenship or residence requirements

90.  Conscientious objection

135.  Discharge or leaving

138.  Disciplinary action

150.  Distance to work

155.  Domestic circumstances55

180.  Equipment

190.  Evidence

195.  Experience or training

210.  Good cause

235.  Health or physical condition

290   Leaving without notice 290.  Leaving without notice

305.  Military service

315.  New work

345.  Pension

360.  Personal affairs

f h k 365.  Prospect of other work

385.  Relation of alleged cause to leaving

440.  Termination of employment

4/27/2012

19

Hours. Appeal No. 1379‐CA‐76. The claimant, aHours. Appeal No. 1379 CA 76. The claimant, anurse’s aide, was originally hired to work a forty‐hourweek. Later, the employer wanted to double thenumber of patients for whom the claimant was to beresponsible but she declined to take on the addedresponsibility. Thereafter, her working hours werereduced by about 50% and she was placed on an asreduced by about 50% and she was placed on an as‐needed basis. When she was told that she would haveto accept the reduced work schedule or quit, she quit.

Held: The reduction in the claimant’s hours by halfHeld: The reduction in the claimant s hours by halfand her change from regular to as‐needed basisamounted to such a substantial change in theclaimant’s hiring agreement as to have provided herwith good cause connected with the work for herquitting.

4/27/2012

20

Alleged cause to Leaving. Appeal No. 1831‐CA‐77.About a month before the claimant quit work, hersupervisor had given her certain directions about over‐supervisor had given her certain directions about over‐time and compensatory time. During the ensuingmonth, she was able to work within the framework ofher supervisor’s guidelines and the employer’s formalpolicy on overtime. Had the claimant been unable, fora good reason, to comply strictly with the overtime

li lt ti t ld h bpolicy, alternative arrangements could have beenmade; however, the claimant did not raise the issue atany time during her last month.

HELD: Since the claimant continued to work for theemployer for about a month after the conversationwhich caused her to quit, she did not have good causeconnected with the work for quitting at the time thatshe did. Disqualification under Section 207.045.

4/27/2012

21

• Take a step back and evaluate—what may be a winner at an unemployment hearing may be a loser for later litigation strategy

• Be prepared for the long haul—learn the entire story from all involved, pull all employee files, prepare your witnesses—sworn testimony, know the documents (personnel file, emails, any supporting work documents)

Considerations A waiver to benefits is not enforceableLabor Code § 207.071§ 207.071. Waiver, Release, or Commutation Agreement Invalid

(a) Except for an employer's waiver under Chapter 204 and Section 205.011, an agreement by an individual to waive, release, or commute the individual's right to benefits or any , g yother rights under this subtitle is not valid.

(b) An agreement by an individual employed by an employer to pay all or a portion of a contribution or reimbursement required to be paid by the employer under this subtitle is not valid.