Summary
The Ohio Second District Court of Appeals affirmed a trial court judgment upholding the Unemployment Compensation Review Commission’s determination that Michelle Peterson was discharged for just cause and was not entitled to unemployment benefits. The court concluded that the record supported a finding that Peterson failed to call or report for work for three consecutive scheduled days, triggering Securitas’s automatic-resignation policy. The court also declined to consider materials that were not part of the certified administrative record.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether the trial court erred by affirming the UCRC's determination that Peterson was discharged for just cause and was ineligible for unemployment compensation.
- Whether the trial court could consider text messages, telephone records, and other materials that were not part of the certified administrative record.
Holdings
- The UCRC's determination that Peterson was discharged for just cause was supported by competent, credible evidence and was not unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence.
- The trial court was limited to the certified record provided by the UCRC and lacked authority to consider additional materials attached to Peterson's notice of administrative appeal.
Key quotations
“An appellate court may reverse the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's ‘just cause’ determination only if it is unlawful, unreasonable or against the manifest weight of the evidence.” (¶ 37)
“Notably, appellate courts have limited review powers and cannot make factual findings or decide witness credibility.” (¶ 39)
“The court shall hear the appeal on the certified record provided by the commission.” (¶ 46)
Factual background
Peterson worked as a security officer for Securitas at a Procter & Gamble site. She was scheduled to work on December 24, 25, and 26, 2019, but did not call or report for work on any of those dates. Securitas's handbook provided that failure to show up or call for three or more consecutive days could be treated as an automatic resignation, and the company sent Peterson a letter stating that she was considered to have resigned. Peterson claimed that supervisors had previously told her she was fired, but the hearing officer credited Securitas's witnesses, who testified that the employment ended because of the three-day no-call, no-show violation.
Procedural history
Peterson applied for unemployment benefits after her employment with Securitas ended. After successive administrative determinations, a hearing officer found that she had been discharged for just cause and ordered repayment of benefits; the UCRC affirmed. The Montgomery County Court of Common Pleas affirmed the UCRC decision, and Peterson appealed to the Second District Court of Appeals, which affirmed.