Legal mags HELP

[54-46]

Looked at this for 30 secs, but who will the court of appeal defer to - the ALJ or the Board, if the standard of review is substantial evidence?

[GeezerSteve]

Danno beat you to the punch with that question. I have no clue how it works here. I'm not an admin law jock, but I think it's more common for an appellate court to apply A&C standard on admin review.

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

i have read the damn pro se guide front to back and i cant find the standard of review?

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

and from what ive gathered they are only going off the workforce appeals boards decision, not the ALJ. But honestly im not sure about that.

[Lone Star]

Are you faced with having to give some money back, then?

[GeezerSteve]

i have read the damn pro se guide front to back and i cant find the standard of review?

The standard of review would be a matter of law, not covered by court rules

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

Are you faced with having to give some money back, then?

yes they want me to pay it all back.

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

The standard of review would be a matter of law, not covered by court rules

so how would i determine the standard of review?

[GeezerSteve]

See http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ut-court-...s/1660979.html AFAICT, the Court of Appeals reviews the Board re factual issues per a substantial evidence standard of review. (Review of errors of law is a completely different thing.) FWIW, it also appears that the Board's review is de novo or something equivalent, plus the power to consider additional evidence, i.e., at the Board review stage the parties may supplement the record.

Do NOT rely on this observation, which I base on a 2-minute Google search. I am NOT OP's attorney nor the attorney of anyone reading this. I am NOT licensed to practice in UT. I have NO expertise re admin law matters nor unemployment insurance matters. This is merely a shoot from the hip observation made on an internet forum.

[RootSkier]

Go to Google Scholar, select "case law" -> UT Court of Appeals, then copy and paste "Workforce appeals board." There are tons of cases. I am not licensed in UT and all that shit, but this might be relevant:

¶ 8 Smith first contends that by considering the DUI form and the testimony concerning its use after the hearing, the Board engaged in an unlawful decision-making process, and violated and misapplied Department rules. Smith is entitled to relief based upon the agency's "unlawful procedure or decision-making process," Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4)(e) (2008), only if he was "substantially prejudiced" as a result, id. § 63G-4-403(4). The standard for determining whether a claimant in an agency proceeding has been substantially prejudiced is the same as the standard used for deciding whether an error in a judicial proceeding is harmless. See Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 584 (Utah 1991), superseded by statute on other grounds, Utah Code Ann. § 59-l-610(l)(b) (Supp.1993), as recognized in 49th St. Galleria v. Tax Comm'n, 860 P.2d 996, 999 (Utah Ct.App.1993). "[A]n error will be harmless if it is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Although an appellate court will give an agency some deference in the interpretation and application of its own rules and procedures, see Resort Retainers v. Labor Comm'n, 2010 UT App 229, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 1081, we will "defer[ ] to an agency's interpretation" only if it "is both reasonable and rational," Barnard & Burk Grp., Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 401, ¶ 9, 122 P.3d 700.

¶ 9 Smith also asserts that the Board abused its discretion by basing its decision on findings of fact that are not adequately supported by the evidence. "An administrative agency's findings of fact will be reversed `only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence.'" Smith v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2010 UT App 382, ¶ 6, 245 P.3d 758 (quoting Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997)); see also Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-508(8)(e) (2005) ("In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Workforce 376*376 Appeals Board as to the facts, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law."). "Substantial evidence is that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion." Caster v. West Valley City, 2001 UT App 212, ¶ 4, 29 P.3d 22. Furthermore, whether an employer has just cause to terminate an employee is a mixed question of law and fact. See EAGALA, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2007 UT App 43, ¶ 9, 157 P.3d 334. "Because proper application of the Employment Security Act and the relevant rules requires little highly specialized or technical knowledge," we grant "moderate deference" to the Board's decision and will uphold it "so long as it is within the realm of reasonableness and rationality." Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2001 UT App 198, ¶ 16, 29 P.3d 7 (internal quotation marks omitted).[6]



Jeremy C. SMITH v. WORKFORCE APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; and Alpine School District, Respondents., 2011 UT App 68.

[RootSkier]

The UT Court of Appeals judges are wordy motherfuckers.

[Danno]

judges are wordy motherfuckers.

fixed your post

[IVplay]

It seems your old place is going through a lot of effort to nail a seasonal worker, with their legal fees likely exceeding whatever you pay back. Did you fuck someone's wife or something?

For real though, you gotta find at least some rookie lawyer who is willing to take your case. Law is a jargon heavy field and you will get lost in the minutiae. I don't know how it works in Utah, but in Canada if you win your case the judge will almost always allocate at least 2/3s of your legal fees to be paid by the other side.

[LightRanger]

but in Canada if you win your case the judge will almost always allocate at least 2/3s of your legal fees to be paid by the other side.

That is NOT how it is in the United States (absent contract or statute to the contrary).

[NSFW]

UT court of appeals

Are you Mormon?
Is the judge reviewing Mormon?
Is your former employer Mormon?

[skifishbum]

chuckorama
or
golden buffet?
i'd call hutch

[Skidog]

chuckorama
or
golden buffet?
i'd call hutch

Are these even allowed in the Wasatch back park city area? I think there is a zoning law against it.

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

It seems your old place is going through a lot of effort to nail a seasonal worker, with their legal fees likely exceeding whatever you pay back. Did you fuck someone's wife or something?

For real though, you gotta find at least some rookie lawyer who is willing to take your case. Law is a jargon heavy field and you will get lost in the minutiae. I don't know how it works in Utah, but in Canada if you win your case the judge will almost always allocate at least 2/3s of your legal fees to be paid by the other side.

I wish my employer had to pay. They stand to win whatever they paid for my unemployment back, so really they have nothing to lose.

And how the fuck do I find this rookie lawyer? I have spent a lot of time talking to lawyers and law firms and havent found shit.

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

Go to Google Scholar, select "case law" -> UT Court of Appeals, then copy and paste "Workforce appeals board." There are tons of cases. I am not licensed in UT and all that shit, but this might be relevant:

¶ 8 Smith first contends that by considering the DUI form and the testimony concerning its use after the hearing, the Board engaged in an unlawful decision-making process, and violated and misapplied Department rules. Smith is entitled to relief based upon the agency's "unlawful procedure or decision-making process," Utah Code Ann. § 63G-4-403(4)(e) (2008), only if he was "substantially prejudiced" as a result, id. § 63G-4-403(4). The standard for determining whether a claimant in an agency proceeding has been substantially prejudiced is the same as the standard used for deciding whether an error in a judicial proceeding is harmless. See Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Utah State Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 584 (Utah 1991), superseded by statute on other grounds, Utah Code Ann. § 59-l-610(l)(b) (Supp.1993), as recognized in 49th St. Galleria v. Tax Comm'n, 860 P.2d 996, 999 (Utah Ct.App.1993). "[A]n error will be harmless if it is sufficiently inconsequential that there is no reasonable likelihood that the error affected the outcome of the proceedings." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted). Although an appellate court will give an agency some deference in the interpretation and application of its own rules and procedures, see Resort Retainers v. Labor Comm'n, 2010 UT App 229, ¶ 11, 238 P.3d 1081, we will "defer[ ] to an agency's interpretation" only if it "is both reasonable and rational," Barnard & Burk Grp., Inc. v. Labor Comm'n, 2005 UT App 401, ¶ 9, 122 P.3d 700.

¶ 9 Smith also asserts that the Board abused its discretion by basing its decision on findings of fact that are not adequately supported by the evidence. "An administrative agency's findings of fact will be reversed `only if the findings are not supported by substantial evidence.'" Smith v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2010 UT App 382, ¶ 6, 245 P.3d 758 (quoting Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177, 181 (Utah 1997)); see also Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-508(8)(e) (2005) ("In any judicial proceeding under this section, the findings of the Workforce 376*376 Appeals Board as to the facts, if supported by the evidence, are conclusive and the jurisdiction of the court is confined to questions of law."). "Substantial evidence is that quantum and quality of relevant evidence that is adequate to convince a reasonable mind to support a conclusion." Caster v. West Valley City, 2001 UT App 212, ¶ 4, 29 P.3d 22. Furthermore, whether an employer has just cause to terminate an employee is a mixed question of law and fact. See EAGALA, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2007 UT App 43, ¶ 9, 157 P.3d 334. "Because proper application of the Employment Security Act and the relevant rules requires little highly specialized or technical knowledge," we grant "moderate deference" to the Board's decision and will uphold it "so long as it is within the realm of reasonableness and rationality." Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2001 UT App 198, ¶ 16, 29 P.3d 7 (internal quotation marks omitted).[6]



Jeremy C. SMITH v. WORKFORCE APPEALS BOARD, DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES; and Alpine School District, Respondents., 2011 UT App 68.

Thanks! this is exactly the kind of stuff i need! i think....lol

[RootSkier]

Thanks! this is exactly the kind of stuff i need! i think....lol

That'll be $350.

[mtngirl79]

I don't understand why you want to fight this so bad. Winning is highly unlikely. A similar thing happened to me with my job in Moses Lake. They said they had no work, I applied for unemployment, had a new job in about a month, and they contested my unemployment, saying I quit.

It pissed me off because those fuckers are loaded with 50,000 dollar boats and brand new trucks every year and whatever their portion of my measly 1600 dollars of unemployment I collected before I found a new job wasn't going to hurt them...

But one conversation with their investigater or whatever they call them told me I wasn't going to win, and any efforts to win just made me feel really angry and helpless and I couldn't afford to feel that way at the time.

So it's just another bill... odd that you were out of work so long and unable to find something... I was pretty bad off then and managed to get work pretty fast...

[Cono Este]

As the plaintiff in a large lawsuit 10 yrs ago, and since I just wrote another check for 2500 bucks to renew the judgement, I was about to sympathize you, and tell you not to let it get the best of you. but then I found out what you were suing for and I am afraid there is no hope for you.

Sorry.

[Hott Butt Mud]

You need to get on the Dark Web and obtain new identity.

[Harry]

This is interesting:

30 percent of all unemployment claims in America are outsourced to one company, called Talx. They make a profit by filing endless appeals until the poor sap just gives up. One of their top clients is Wal Mart. According to the article, if they are losing during a phone hearing they just hang up on the judge, then file an appeal claiming they were disconnected.

OP: any chance this company was hired by your old employer ?

http://www.nytimes.com/2010/04/04/us...ml?ref=us&_r=0

[dynodonkeyaltabird]

Lol there is a chance they hired them. And im not suing anybody. They want me to pay all the money back and its a lot more than $1600...