The opinion
STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT
PENOBSCOT, ss CIVIL ACTION
DOCKET NO, AP 2002-31 |
AA APEY -NPoeer
ALFRED F. SULLIVAN, ) no
)
Petitioner )
)
v. )
)
) ey
STATE OF MAINE ) DONALD! psc -
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE ) MERE gr
COMMISSION )
) UEC 4 agg:
Respondent )
This matter is before the Court on appeal pursuant to Rule 80(C) of the Maine
Rules of Civil Procedure from the decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission (herein, “Commission”) affirming a hearing officer’s decision to deny the
Appellant, Alfred F. Sullivan (herein, “Claimant’’) unemployment benefits. The legal
basis for the hearing officer’s decision was that the Claimant had refused suitable work.
26 MLR.S.A. §1193(3).
Background
The facts are undisputed. The Claimant worked for Page Employment (herein,
“Employer”), an employment agency, from March 4, 2002 to May 31, 2002. (R. at 15,
24). The Claimant’s last assigned position with the Employer was as an assembly line
worker at Lemforder, Inc., a manufacturer of automobile parts in Brewer, Maine. (R. at
24). At the conclusion of Claimant’s temporary assignment with Lemforder, he earned
$7.00 per hour and was working 38.75 hours per week. (R. at 15,3 1). Claimant did not
receive any employment benefits during his work assignment at Lemforder. (R. at 25).
On June 7, 2002, the Employer offered the Claimant a similar position at MQR, a
company also located in Brewer, Maine, which screens automobile parts for Lemforder.
(R. at 25). This position would also pay $7.00 per hour. (R. at 15, 25). The Claimant
initially accepted the position with MQR. (R. at 16, 26). On June 10, 2002, however, the
Claimant did not report to work at MQR. (R. at 16, 26). That afternoon, the Claimant
informed his Employer that he was declining the offer of work because he wanted full-
time permanent work with benefits. (R. at 16, 26). The Claimant also stated that he was
unhappy about the fact that at his previous position with Lemforder the management had
not offered him a permanent full-time position with benefits. (R. at 16, 29, 34). The
Claimant did not inform his Employer that he could not accept the position at MQR due
to problems he was currently experiencing with his eyesight. (R. at 16, 32).
On August 6, 2002, the Claimant was diagnosed with cataracts in both eyes; the
right eye requires surgery. (R. at 7-8). Claimant contends that he declined the position at
MQR because it involved screening parts, which required 100% eye coordination. (R. at
6). Specifically, Claimant would be required to visually check ball-joint assemblies for
any defects. (R. at 32). Claimant admits that he did not disclose his vision problem to
his Employer. (R. at 6, 31).
The Claimant applied for unemployment benefits (R. at 30, 31). The deputy
found that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he
refused to accept an offer of suitable work for which he was reasonably fitted. (R. at 15,
41). The Claimant appealed to the Division of Administrative Hearings. (R. at 22, 38).
After a hearing, the Administrative Hearing Officer affirmed the deputy’s decision,
finding that the Claimant refused an offer of suitable work. (R. at 16). The Claimant
then appealed this decision to the Commission, which affirmed and adopted the
Administrative Hearing Officer Decision. (R. at 9, 13-14). The Claimant requested
reconsideration of the Commission’s decision, which was denied. (R. at 1-2). This
appeal followed.
Discussion
A. Standard of Review
The scope of judicial review of an administrative agency’s factfinding is strictly
limited; such a finding may be overturned only upon a showing by a challenger that it
was “unsupported by substantial evidence on the whole record.” Clarke v. Maine
Unemployment Insurance Commission, 491 A.2d 549, 552 (Me., 1985) (citation
omitted). “This standard of review of an administrative finding of fact is identical to the
‘clear error’ standard used by the Law Court.” Id. (quoting Gulick v. Board of
Environmental Protection, 452 A.2d 1202, 1207-08 (Me. 1982)). The reviewing court
must examine the entire record to determine whether on the basis of all the testimony and
exhibits before the agency it could fairly and reasonably find the facts as it did. Clarke,
491 A.2d at 551 (citing In re Maine Clean Fuels, Inc., 310 A.2d 736, 741 (Me. 1973)).
The court will not substitute its judgment for the Commission’s where there may be a
reasonable difference of opinion. Clarke, 491 A.2d at 552 (citing Seven Islands Land Co.
y. Maine Land Use Regulation Commission, 450 A.2d 475, 479 (Me. 1982)).
In an 80C appeal, the court must determine whether the Commission abused its
discretion, committed error of law, or made findings not supported by substantial
evidence in the record. McGhie v. Town of Cutler, 2002 ME 62, 95, 793 A.2d 504.
Substantial evidence is evidence that a reasonable mind would accept as sufficient to
support a conclusion. Bath Jron Works v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission,
docket no. AP-01-066 (Me. Super. Ct., June 17, 2002) (Crowley, J.).
B. Applicable Law
Maine’s unemployment compensation law provides that “an individual shall be
disqualified for benefits . . . [flor the duration of his unemployment subsequent to his
having refused to accept an offer of suitable work for which he is reasonably fitted . . .”
26 M.LR.S.A. §1193(3). The burden is on the Claimant to show that the work offered was
not suitable. Proctor vy. Maine Employment Security Commission, 406 A.2d 905, 907
(Me. 1979).
The agency’s factual determination of whether a particular job offer is suitable is
guided by its consideration of the following factors:
[I]n determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual
during the first 12 consecutive weeks of unemployment, the deputy shall
consider the degree of risk involved to [claimant’s] health, safety and
morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior
earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local
work in his customary occupation, and the distance of the available work
from his residence.
26 M.R.S.A. §1193(3)(A).' The Commission must consider all of the elements as
outlined by the statute; no single factor is determinative. Clarke, 491 A.2d at 551 (citing
Tobin v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 420 A.2d 222, 225 (Me. 1980);
Grace v. Maine Employment Security Commission, 398 A.2d 1233, 1235 (Me. 1979)).
“The question of suitability of the work offered in a given case is one of fact and
the [Commission’s] determination of that fact .. . cannot be attacked . . . if it is sustained
' The Claimant was unemployed for two weeks before he filed for benefits. (R. at 15,
16). Because the Claimant was unemployed for less than 12 consecutive weeks, 26
M.R.S.A. §1193(3)(A) applies to this case.
by competent evidence.” Clarke, 491 A.2d at 552 (citations omitted). In the case at bar,
the Commission committed no error in applying the controlling law. The Administrative
Hearing Officer held a hearing and produced an opinion stating its reasons for denying
benefits to the Claimant. (R. at 15-40). The Commission affirmed and adopted the
Administrative Hearing Officer’s decision. (R. at 1-2, 9). After examining the factors
outlined in 26 M.R.S.A. 1193(3)(A), the Administrative Hearing Officer found as a fact
that on June 7, 2002, the position as a screener of automobile parts at MQP offered to
Claimant was suitable employment for him. (R. at 16). The Administrative Hearing
Officer concluded that the offered position was similar to the Claimant’s previous
position at Lemforders in that it was for the same hours, the same rate of pay, the same
commute, and was for an infinite duration. (R. at 1, 16).
The Claimant argues that the Administrative Hearing Officer and the Commission
erred when it failed to consider his eyesight problems. (Claimant’s Letter to the Court,
dated March 18, 2003). The Commission found that that the Claimant did not make his
Employer aware that this was his reason for declining the offer of work and that he did
not seek medical attention at that time in regard to his eyesight. (R. at 1). The Claimant
had a responsibility to communicate his concerns about the suitability of the offer of
employment to his employer. See Therrien v. Maine Employment Security Commission,
370 A.2d 1385, 1390 (Me. 1977). “The employer must be given an opportunity to
change the offensive conditions. Hence, the employee must reasonably make known his
dissatisfaction to the employer.” Merrow v. Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission, 495 A.2d 1197, 1201 (Me., 1985)(citations omitted).
Conclusion
The record before the Commission contains substantial evidence supporting its
finding of fact that on June 10, 2002, Alfred F. Sullivan refused an offer of suitable work.
On review the Court will not disturb that finding, and accordingly, the entry is:
Appeal DENIED. Decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission is
AFFIRMED.
parep:h\yyen yt C6, 0003 ha lf
Ju tice, Maine Superior Court
Jy rew M. Mead
Date Filed
Action
11/01/02 PENOBSCOT Docket No.
AP-2002-31
County
RULE 80C APPEAL
ASSIGNED TO JUSTICE ANDREW M. MEAD
ALFRED F. SULLIVAN
Appellant VS. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION Appe!
Plaintiff's Attorney
ALFRED F. SULLIVAN, PRO SE
81 BEECH GROVE RD.
CORINTH, ME.
Defendant’s Attorney
STATE OF MAINE
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
6 STATE HOUSE STATION
AUGUSTA, ME. 04333-0006
BY: ELIZABETH J. WYMAN, ESQ.
PAMELA W. WAITE, ESQ.
04427
Date of
Entry
11/01/02 Petition for Appellate Review of Final Agency Action filed. (attachments
attached)
1/17/03 Copy of Petition with attachments forwarded to Jerry Parent, Maine Dept.
of Labor, P O Box 259, Benefits Section, Augusta, ME. 04332 per telephon
request.
1/28/03 Letter received by Elizabeth J. Wyman, Esq., and Pamela W. Waite, Esq.;
entering their appearance for the Defendant Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission.
2/24/03 Administrative Record filed by Appellee.
2/26/03 |Notice and Briefing Schedule 80C Appeal of Final Agency Actions filed.
Copy forwarded to attorneys of record. and to Plaintiff, Pro Se.
3/18/03 By letter, Entry of Appearance by Alfred Sullivan, Pro Se. and position
in this case.
3/24/03 Copy of Entry of Appearance by Appellant filed 3/18/03, forwarded to
Apellee's attorney.
4/28/03 Letter received by Elizabeth J. Wyamn, AAG, certifying that third-year
law student Danielle West-Chuhta is authorized to appear in court pursuan
to Rule 90 of the Maine Rules of Civil Procedure. (attachment attached)
5/2/03 Brief of Respondent Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission filed.
9/9/03 Oral Argument on Rule 80C Appeal set for 10/28/03 at 10:30 AM. Copy
forwarded to Appellant Pro se and all attorneys of record.
10/28/03 | Oral Argument on Rule 80C Appeal held.
Andrew M. Mead, Justice; Karen
Electronic Recording Tape
Matter taken under advisement.
Smith, Court Room Clerk;
No. 764 Index No
1105 - 1230.
Justice Mead has file.