# Appendix — Fusari v. Steinberg > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0127%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Appendix - **Published:** January 1, 1975 - **Citation:** 419 U.S. 379 ## Text os - .S . ne et . = - . * \ ler . *% - mS 2” WO eT RIA, we RR ON a PO LO ee ae 6 Ty ae Sy ¢ABLE OF CONTENTS . Relevant Docket Entries . Exhibit B of O-iginal Complaint . Ameaded Cc mplaint . Answer to Amended Complaint . Stipulation to Facts . Stipulation as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits . Stipulation to Depositions . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9 (Deposition of Eleanor . 14 (Letter dated December . 1S (Letter dated February . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No 20, . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 27 (UC Form 45 and Memorandum dated June 30, 1972) . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28b (Letter dated May 19, 1953) . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28c¢ (Letter dated November GD, FURIE ccancccsessevecnsscsseenesseusecnnese- supennaceceoceytttapebers . Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28d (Letter dated April 17. 19. 21. 26. 27. i Page Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28e (Letter dated May BR, Sie enincichtcteeateinssnitiiusiinencbanintateptiietishaittaiinniininbbicaiiptie 129a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 29m (Memorandum dated I Ui SIIUTI iniiecasiennncunieinsabatiresiinendaialandieneebtiiaben I3la Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 290 (Memorandum dated PRG BG, Fe iccscecvctncdsccttsisdecivcbsetccetenaninictents 132a Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 31 (Time limitations on deciding appeals to the Unemployment Compen- Sation COMMISSION ..................cccccccseeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeees 133a Piaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 32 (Affidavits and Supple- mentary Affidavits of Delia Triana and Juan Mi- RAE TMV ej 5 AES SNES BUA A, 135a Defendant's Exhibit A (Affidavit of Carl D. I ck senciictcuhecinticebicirininciceehitlbedaniinsitigiabsiciviakiiininiebion 143a Defendant's Exhibit B (Affidavit of Petra Collazo). 145a Letter from Attorney General to Three-Judge Dis- I Ge erasntinrineastertihnatetiantiancatanuanatiotiiitiinntinaice 147a Proposed Consent O9der ............ccccccccccceeeeeeeeeeneeeeees 149a Affidavit of Theodore W. Hatcher ...................000008 150a Transcript of Proceedings of May 14, 1973 (Proceedings Prior to Testimony of Theodore Wes Naish ta innchucibineatitinttindalhnddihathiasindincenteanteatiads 1Sla Transcript of Proceedings of May 14, 1973 (Testimony of Theodore W. Hatcher) ................-:++ 159a Defendant's Exhibit C (Unemployment Compen- sation Booklet — “Your Rights and Responsibilities under the Connecticut Unemployment Compensa- gy RARE Sake LS Tl Ee Ra 228a 31. 33. iii Page Re RAN GA Sed sR a al tl 25Sa Motion for Suspension of Injunction Pending PRD eicigpncsenindiabanbanidavennimenaaaniitsigeahenbisiuisnesitinmunzecs 256a Court’s Order re Motion for Suspension of Injunc- tion Pending Appeal..................cccccccccsseeeeceeeeeeceeceees 257a Court's Order re Motion for Proceeding in forma PEGE cetetcccctttsctentninnistenseerenctnendiicinictataniineesiiieniinasia 258a JACK A. FUSARI, Commissioner of Labor of the State of Connecticut, Administrator, Unemployment Compensa- tion Act. Appellant, LARRY STEINBERG, et al Appellees. Relevant Docket Entries * * * * 1972 6/12 Complaint filed. - 8/ 7 Motion to Dismiss filed. 8/ 7 Motion for Order Determining this Action is not a Class Action filed by defendant. 9/11 Motion to Intervene filed by Mary Delicato, Dilly La- Pietra, Margaret Hoadley, Judith Roy, Shirley Gon- zales and Leo E. Hart. 9/18 Motion to Determine the Propriety of Class Action filed by plaintiffs. 9/19 Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs filed by Delia Triana, Luis Rodriguez, Primitivo Comacho and Juan Miranda. 9/19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Delia Triana, Luis Rodriguez, Primitivo Comacho and Juan Miranda. 9/19 Motion to Intervene as Plaintiffs filed by Jose M. Lo- pez and Juan Lopez. 9/19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Jose M. 9/22 9/25 10/ 2 10/10 10/16 10/19 10/20 10/20 -2a- Lopez and Juan Lopez. Objection to Motion to Intervene filed by defendant. Objection to Motion to Intervene filed by defendant. Hearing on (1) Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss; (2) De- fendart’s Motion for Order Determining this Action is not a Class Action; (3) Motion of Mary Delicato, Dilly LaPietra, Margaret Hoadley, Judith Roy, Shirley Gonzales and Leo E. Hart to Intervene; (4) Plaintiffs’ Motion to Determine the Propriety of Class Action; (5) Motion of Delia Triana, Luis Rodriguez, Primitivo Comacho and Juan Miranda to Intervene as Plaintiffs; (6) Motion of Delia Triano, et als for Preliminary In- junction; (7) Motion of Jose M. Lopez, et al for Pre- liminary Injunction; (8) Motion of Jose M. Lopez, et al for Preliminary Injunction; * * * (10) Defendant's Objection to Motions to Intervene dated 9/7/72; and (11) Defendant's Objection to Motion to Intervene dated 9/19/72; * * * Decision Reserved on all eleven motions. Newman, J. M-10/ 3/72. Motion for Hearing to Present Testimony Regarding Motions for Preliminary Injunction and Notice of Mo- tion, filed by defendant. Hearing re Defendant's Motion to Present Testimony regarding Motions for Preliminary Injunction. Affi- davits of D. S. Ballew and Delia Triana, filed by De- fendant. Defendant's witnesses Mrs. Vivienne Gold- stein, Mildred P. Cogswell and Carl D. Eisenman sworn and testified, * * * Decision Reserved. New- man, J. M-10/ 17/72. Affidavit of Carl D. Eisenman filed. Affidavit by Juan Lopez filed. Application for Convening of a Three-Judge District Court, filed by plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs. 10/20 10/20 10/20 1l/ 6 11/13 11/13 11/30 12/ 4 12/ 4 -3a- Supplementary Affidavit of Primitivo Comacho filed Supplementary Affidavit of Juan Miranda filed. Supplementary Affidavit of Delia Triana filed. Hearing on Plaintiffs’ and Intervening Plaintiffs’ Appli- cation for Convening a Three-Judge Court. Plaintiffs and Intervenors orally withdraw their claims for retro- activity. Decision Reserved. Newman, J. M-11/6/ 72. Memorandum of Decision ou Motions to Convene Three-Judge Court, to Intervene, to Dismiss and for Temporary Injunction, entered. Plaintiffs’ request for determination of this suit as a class action will be de- ferred for consideration by the Three-Judge Court. The motions to intervene filed by Hart, Gonzales, Roy, Hoadley, LaPietra, Delicato, Comacho, Rodriguez, Jose Lopez, and Juan Lopez are denied; the motion to intervene as plaintiffs filed by Miranda and Triana are granted; the defendant's motion to dismiss is denied; the plaintiffs’ motion to convene a three-judge court is granted; and the intervening plaintiffs motion for temporary injunctive relief is denied. Newman, J. M-11/ 14/72. Intervening Complaint of Delia Triana and Juan Mi- randa filed. * * * Motion for Production of Documents filed by plain- tiffs. ~' Motion for Leave to File Supplemental Matter in an Amended Complaint, endorsed as follows: “Motion granted, absent objection.” Newman, J. M-12/4/72. Amended Complaint filed. 12/ 12/18 -4a- Interrogatories to the Defendant and Requests to Pro- duce filed by plaintiffs. Objection to Interrogatories and Requests to Produce filed by defendant. * * * Answer to Amended Complaint filed by defendant. Answer to Motion for Production of Documents filed by defendant. Answer to Interrogatories and Requests to Produce to- gether with documents, filed by defendant. Claim for Three-Judge Court Trial List filed by plain- tiffs. Tapes of Depositions of Eleanor H. Smarz and Com- missioner Loughlin filed. Deposition of Eleanor H. Smarz filed. Deposition of Commissioner Loughlin filed. Motion to Redetermine the Propriety of a Class Ac- tion filed by plaintiffs. Objection to Motion to Redetermine the Propriety of a Class Action filed by defendant. Hearing on Plaintiffs’ Motion to Re-Determine the Pro- priety of a Class Action. Decision Reserved. * * * Newman, J. M-4/ 18/73. Plaintiffs’ Motion to Redeteimine the Propriety of a Class Action, endorsed as follows: “Motion referred for consideration by the three-judge court.” Newman, J. M-4/ 17/73. 5/14 5/17 6/ 5 6/ 5 9/17 Three-Judge Court Hearing on the Merits. | Plaintiff's witness sworn and testified. Stipulation to facts filed. Stipulation as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits filed. Stipulation to Depositions filed. (Exhibits 8 and 9) Plaintiffs’ Ex- hibits | thru 31 filed. Plaintiffs’ List of Exhibits 1-30 filed. Defendant's Exhibits A thru E filed. | Defend- ant’s witness sworn and testified. Affidavit of Juan Miranda, Sept. 6, 1972; Supplemen- tary Affidavit of Juan Miranda, Oct. 18, 1972; Affi- davit of Delia Triana, Sept. 12, 1972; and Supplemen- tary Affidavit of Delia Triana, Oct. 18, 1972 to be marked as Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 32, filed by plaintiff. Proposed Consent Order filed by Defendant. Affidavit of Theodore W. Hatcher filed by Defendant. Memorandum of Decision entered. “This suit presents the question of whether either the Fourteenth Amend- ment, or § 303 of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 503 (a) (1), requires that recipients of Conn. unem- ment compensation benefits be afforded a Goldberg v. Kelly (397 U.S. 254 (1970)) hearing prior to being de- prived of such payments, etc. ***, we conclude that the Connecticut System fails to meet minimal due process standards and therefore must be enjoined. Rule 23 (b) (2)’s requirement are met, and we designate this a class action. In summary, we find that the “seated interview” system as currently used for terminating or suspending the payment of unemployment compensa- tion benefits does not provide minimal due process under the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. We accordingly enjoin the defendant Administrator, his successors in office, agents, etc. from administering Chapter 567, Conn. Gen. Stat. (§ 31-222 ef seg.) in such a manner as to deprive members of the plaintiff class of unemployment benefits without first according 9/25 9/25 ~-Ha- them a constitutionally sufficient prior hearing. This opinion shall serve as the Court's findings of fact and conclusions of law, under Fed. R. Civ. P. 52(a).” Smith, C. J.; Blumenfeld, D. J.; Newman, D. J. M-9/17/73. es Motion for Suspension of Injunction Pending Appeal filed by defendant. Judgment entered that the defendant Administrator, his successors, etc. are enjoined from administering Chap. 567, Conn. Gen. Stat. (§ 31-222 ef seq.) in such a man- ner as to deprive members of the plaintiff class of un- ployment benefits without first according them a con- Stitutionally sufficient prior hearing. Markowski, C. Approved: Smith, C. J. ; Blumenfeld, D. J.; Newman, D. J. M-9/25/73. Hearing on Motion for Stay Pending Appeal to Su- preme Court. Argument by Counsel for Plaintiff and Defendant. Decision Reserved. Newman, J. M-10/ 2/73. Order entered that the injunction issued by this Court on September 17, 1973, is stayed pending disposition of defendant's appeal by the Supreme Court, provided that defendant file a notice of appeal with this Court by October 9, 1973, and file a jurisdictional statement with the Supreme Court by November 9, 1973. Smith, C. J.; Blumenfeld, D. J.; Newman, D. J. M-10/4/73. * > * > Notice of Appeal to the Supreme Court of the United States filed by defendant. Appeal docketed. Clerk's Certificate. Jurisdiction noted. Order entered granting Motion to Proceed in forma pauperis. -7a- EXHIBIT B Case 1161-B-71 UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION LARRY S. STEINBERG Rt. 44, RFD No. | SECOND DISTRICT West Willington, Connecticut 06279 045-36-2590 Mailing date vs. May 10, 1972 THE ADMINISTRATOR UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT Local office 18 APPEARANCES: Douglas M. Crockett, Esq. for the claim- ant. Bernard Gerling for the Administrator. The claimant registered for work and filed a new claim for un- employment benefits as of April 11, 1971. On November | the examiner disapproved claims from October 10 on the ground of unavailability. The claimant's appeal, dated November 5, was assigned for hearing on December 2, 1971, postponed at the re- quest of the claimant and held on January 13, 1972 at Willi- mantic, Connecticut. FINDING OF FACTS 1. The claimant is a single man 25 years old. He has a bachelor’s degree from the University of Connecticut. His major field of study was geography. 2. He worked as an.ironmaker for Scherer Steel Compaay from sometime in 1969 to May, 1970. 3. The claimant registered for work and filed a new claim for unemployment benefits as of April 17, 1971. In the interim after May of 1970 he had been ill. Sa- 4. On April 26, 1971 the claimant was seated and was in- terviewed by an examiner who told him of his rights and re- sponsibilities under the Unemployment Compensation Law, in- cluding the responsibility to reasonably seek work during every week for which benefits are claimed. 5. The claimant then received benefits for 26 weeks at $82 a week, through October 9, 1971. 6. On June 29 the claimant was again seated and inter- viewed by an examinez, who told him to keep a list of places where he looked for work. 7. On Aveust 24 he was again seated and interviewed by an examiner who told him he must expend the scope of his ef- forts to find work, which up to that time had been mainly to telephone or go to Locals 37 and 424 of the lronworkers Union. 8. On October 27 the claimant was again seated and in- terviewed by an examiner. He told the examiner that except for an inquiry at Brand Rex in May, 1971, all his efforts to ob- tain work had been through the hiring halls of the Ironworkers Union. In the week ending October 23 he had gone to the hall of Local 37 in Providence and had telephoned to Local 424 in New Haven and Local 15 in Hartford. He stated that he would accept only union work. He is not a union member but can work on a permit after all union card holders who want work are placed. 9. The above was summarized in writing and the claimant signed the information as true and correct. 10. The claimant was not given unemployment checks on October 27 for the weeks ending October 16 and 23, 1971, which would have been given to him if his claims had been approved as they had been in previous weeks back to April 26. He was told that his checks would be held and that he would get a de- cision in the mail. 11. If the claimant had asked for an immediate written decision on the disapproval of his claims it would have been given to him on that day. This is the policy and practice of the Unemployment Compensation Department. -9a- 12. Because he did not ask for a writien decision on that day the examiner mailed him a decision on November | disap- proving his claims from October 10. From this decision the claimant appealed on November 5. 13. A hearing of this appeal was assigned for December 2, 1971. At the claimant's request the hearing was postponed to January 13, 1972. 14. The claimant worked for Trahan Seafoods from No- vember 22 to December 22, 1971. He was laid off due to lack of work. 1S. He filed a partial claim for the week ending Decem- ber 25, 1971 which was paid in the amount of $53. 16. He received unemployment benefits in subsequent weeks and has continued to receive them to the date of this finding of facts, at $82 a week. 17. The claimant contends that he had no opportunity to be heard prior to the stopping of his benefits effective October 10, 1971. 18. Notice is taken here of the policy and practice of the Unemployment Compensation Department. The policy is never to disapprove a claim until after at least one seated interview. At periodic interviews the examiner inquires of the claimant about any restrictions he may be placing on his availability in the labor market. The examiner also inquires where the claim- ant has looked for work. The claimant is informed that the Law requires he look for work. He is also informed that if he does not meet the eligibility requirements of the Law he will not re- ceive checks. 19. This policy and practice was followed with this claim- ant. 20. The claimant was given not one but several hearings on his benefit eligibility status. At each of the seated interviews on April 26, June 29, August 24 and October 27 the claimant had every opportunity to present information favorable to his version of the facts in his situation. 21. The claimant's contention that he had no opportunity to be heard prior to the stopping of his benefits effective Oc- tober 10 must fall in the light of the facts found. The Depart- ment’s policy and practice are reasonably calculated to ensure that benefits are paid when due. 22. It is further found that had he continued to receive benefits he would not have made any more efforts to obtain work in subsequent weeks than he had made up to Octoher 27. 23. His failure to make greater efforts to obtain work than he did make, after having been unemployed for a year and five months, leads to the conclusion that the claimant was re- stricting himself to employment as a union ironworker. He failed to expose himself unequivocally to the labor market and rendered himself unavailable for work within the meaning of the Law, because he was not ready, willing and able to accept work which he did not have good cause to refuse. 24. It is further found that the claimant, during the weeks in issue, from October 10 to November 20, failed to make rea- sonable efforts to obtain work. DECISION The Unemployment Compensation Law provides, among its conditions of eligibility for benefits, that a claimant must be available for work and that he must make reasonable efforts to obtain work during each week for which benefits are sought. The claimant, during the period at issue, is found not to have met this condition. It is held that he was correctly declared in- eligible for benefits from October 10 through November 20, 1971. The examizer’s decision is affirmed. THappeus J. PAWLOWSKI!I Commissioner, Second District The only appeal from this decision is to Superior Court. Six copies of such appeai must be filed with the Unemploy- ment Commission within 14 days of the date of this decision. Such appeal must state the grounds on which you assert that the decision is incorrect. MEMORANDUM The question raised by counsel as to whether due process of law was denied to the cleimant by reason of his checks for unemployment benefits being withheld from him without a hear- ing, is one of deep interest. Notice has been taken of the policy and practice of the Unemployment Compensation Department as being reasonably calculated to ensure payment of benefits when due. Attention should be given to the phrase any week with respect to (Section 31-325) Connecticut General Statutes. Bene- fits are paid or denied based on what happens during a given week. If a claimant has not met the benefits eligibility condi- tions, benefits are not due. Only after the week has elapsed can a decision on entitlement for such week be made. The Depart- ment takes pains and expends time and energy to inform all claimants of what their rights and responsibilities are under the Law. As to the claimant's contention that he was not heard, he is a college graduate and if he did not understand what the ex- aminer said to him on four different occasions, he was not pay- ing attention. ii ‘aye FFM , eek + DOD > Once in a great while. Q Do you review the fact finding determinations made by your fact-finders? A My supervisor usually reviews all the cases that xo on appeal or any case that one of the fact-finders will reouest and on occasions I will review also. © You said your supervisor. Is there another manager? A I have an assistant manager in the Bridgeport office who is in charge of the fact-finding. Q But he is under your authority? A Yes. @ So he would be the one. Does he review all fact- finding determinations? A Wot all fact-finding determination, no. Q Is there any criteria by which a fact-finding de- termination is review by a supervisor? A No there isn't. On occasions when a situation will arise where we will do a review of certain instances or certain issues in your fact-finders records. that they would understand policy. And if there is any question- able case or a case that is going on appeal or dispute, if we ha some issue involved, it would be reviewed. blems that occur in the office we'll forward a report to the Cases are reviewed to see If we have any pro- [teT a -62a- adjudicat‘onunit in Hartford for a decision. Q Does your fact-finding supervisor ever overturn Cecisions by the fact-finder? A Yes ® Is there any criteria or standard for that? A Well, I think the main issue would be that there was some misunderstanding on the policy and he felt that the examiner was making the wrong decision. O Supposing the converse that there was a claim Jound, & Claimant found eligible. Are there ever times when the ciaimants, when a fact-finder determination would be overturned | by the supervisor, on a finding of eligibility? You mean to make him ineligible? Yes There may be an instance. , an >} DY But it, it was your testimony previous that it's not | normally the procedure to review all fact-finding determina Lone’ & It's impossible. | © Do you have any bi-lingual fact-finders in the Bridgeport office? A Xo. Do you mean that would speak other than Un=lish? 2 Specifically, Spanish-speaking fact-finders? A I have one young man that's attending school now Studying Spanish. I don't know if the others have are able to o« ~~ ee = ~ ae -HiAa- speak other languages besides Cnalish and understand it. © Is there any provision made that if a fact-findin: determination is required in a case for a person who does not speak Enclish, that a translater will be provided by the De- partment? A For Spanish-speaking people I have two employment security aides that speak and understand Spanish, and they've been used for translating. © However, they do not do the fact-finding themselves? A They do not do the fact-finding. ‘hey come into the back field and they will translate, both to the claimant and to the fact-finder. I have one or two people, I believe, that can speak some Italian. ‘hon the issue arises they can hely. I myself can speak Ukranian. Well, not that fluently, i taxe it back. And sone Polish, but enouch to understand the individual | or so that they can bring semeone with them on their next visit to help them in internreting. "t has always been my policy, the policy of the Department, to try to assist these peonle when they come into the office. Unfortunately, we cannot provide enourh intervreters for them, but we do try to make arranctements for them if at all cossible to bring someone with them. Some- times there in a claimant that's available and is filing for benefits too. They will assist you. People are very cooncrative in thet manner, in trying to help one another and we try to helo then. ee J [al —= SS Q Mrs. Smarz would you please explain what is the practice and procedure followed in employing a pre-termination hearing by the office. What sets it in motion and what exactly is it? A A predetermination hearing is done in reference to & separation of employment, is that what you're referring to? © Yes, excuse me. The redetermination hearing we're talking.. The pre-termination hearing, not re-deternination, unless our terms are somewhat different. In a pre-termination hearing, after a person has been found initially eligible, what exactly is the practice or procedure that is followed, and when aid this type of hearing start? A Are you referring now *o separation, to refusals of referral by the Employment Serv‘ve? © Yes. ' A That type of hearing? Q Yes, and what other circumstances would necessitate & pre-termination hearing? A Well there are, if @ claimant reports to the office ani files a claim and is separated from employment for other tan lack of work and it's determined by the reason for separation, that a hearing must be scheduled for the employers involved. ! — | ER ee ee (79) He is at that time notified and we have what we call @ pre- determination hearing form, which is mailed to the employer with a supplementary fact-finding report and a slip is given to the individual, scheduling him for a hearing and a time that he will report and the separation from employment be discussed at that time. © Do pre-determination hearings ever occur after a person has been found eligible for benefits and has berun to receive checks? A If there, now lot me see if there is an instance. I'm trying to think. Now if a claimant refuses * referre) by the Employment Service, and it is determined that a hearine is necessary, at that time there is a hearing scheduled. A Foute Slip is received from the Employment Service, and we send to the individual a hearing notice scheduling a hearing for him to cone in ond the hearing notice explains what the situation is. That there is a hearing scheduled ‘or him and he reports at that time and we have a hearing regarding the separation or the refusal of referral, I'm sorry. Q O.K. Dealing with a specific tesue of refusal to o certain referral. Until such time as a pre-determination hearing is rendered, is the man or woman still entitlec to collect denefits? _- ky GC totes = Sere ee ee —_ 7m a ae a eo, 1 oe a -—=+ — iw aly ae ore be thes * ree ~ s 5 - — ‘a «> es Oe. ie a” OR = ) i ed el [aa] © This isn't a long-standing practice that's been in effect for, like ten or fifteen years? A No, definitely not. No this all stems from Java. Q Alright. o.k. Thats.. A That's what you want? . tion hearings? A I don't understand. What employees are eligible to handle pre-dctermina- Q Ape there situations, as with the fact-findin-, where the employment security aide would be able to do a ore- Getermination hearing? A An employment security aide? Q Yes. A There may be an instance where they may do it, tut its doubtful. Q In other words, normally an employtent security atce,, either of level one or two, would orobably not do a ore- determination hearin«? A That's right. ® Normally then would it be the practice that only an employment security aide number three, one with experience, might be called upon to do a pre-determination hearinc? i A A oe oe ee —— No, its. Is it rather unlikely? A It's unlikely, unless there is an extreme emerrency. But it's unlikely. Q Is the level of expertise and knowledge required for a pre-determination hearing, higher than for a fact-findtar determination? A Well, they have to be. I would say so. © rat there is the necessity of a hisher expertise for that type of pre-determination hearing? A Yes. Q Mrs. — DBD > DOD Yes. [38 ] -7ée- © You indicated that either a pre-termination or nre- determination hearing, in any event, a fact-finding hearin;r is given when there is an issue of a person refusine a referral by the Employment Security Division? A Yes. Q Are there any other type of circumstances where this type of hearing would be given before the person's benefits were terninated? A ‘Yell is they are seated for an interview and there is some gGuestion that's goint to arise we ask them if they want to have the interview then or if they want to, would like to save a nearine scheduled. We zive them that option. © But if they choose to have a later hearing, they would not get... A They woulé schedule another nearine for then. © Whey would not get their benefits in the meantime, T's: sorry, I didn't hear the answer? A No. Q When a hearinr is given involving a referral or refusal of 2 referral by the Employment Division, that would involve a@ cuestion of whether the applicant or the Claimant had ‘n fact refused it, whether it had in fact been offered, wheter in fact he had a valid reason for refusing it if indeed he did refuse it. Are any -1$a- of these issues ever involved on a, when a fact-findine decision is made that a person had not used reasonable efforts to find work, would any of these factual issues ever be present in that type of cases? A I don't understand what you mean. Our issue at and 4s the fact that he refused a referral. © Right. In that case, he is generally given notice anc a: opportunity to have a hearing and to present evidence if he chooses to vefore the decision is made? A Yes. O On the reasonable effort fact-findinre decisions, those are generally conducted the day that the person comes in to pick un their check. Isn't it true that in some of those cases, nie will be factual issues involved, such as whether or not the man had in fact gone to several places that he had liste on the UC-45 form? A Yes. Q In those cases. you indicated that the fact-finder would try to confirm whether in fact he had rone to the places he listed or stated that he went to, but it wasn't always rossibl): to reach the employer. Isn't that correct? A Yes. © And that “he fact-finder would make his decision based on facts that he could confirm on the spot. What I am askin= you (271 | ec oer Le! -76a- is whether or not you see any significant difference between factual issues that might be involved in the reasonable effort decision, as opposed to factual issues that might be involved in a refusal of referral by the employment service. In other words why are hearings given before the perron is terminated on refusal cf referral by Employment Service but not on reason- able effort issues? A I can only say it's been procedure. & On the issue of the reasonable effort to obtain work, which “ir. Kelly went into, some of it, when he was questionins you earlier, I'd like to go into that in some more detail. ‘os your knowledge is the statutory requirement of reasonable effort snecifically defined in any department written rerulation or policy letter? A Ho, not. You mean like a number, so many contacts is considered reasonable effort or what have you. No, not to my xnowledze. It's,each effort case is handled by its own in- dividual merits. ® You indicated that,what I'd like to ask you, you talk to your fact-finders, do you not, when you are training them before they begin their duties? A Yes. GH) -?7a- Q@ And I assume you would have periodic meetings to go over new regulations or policy letters you might get. You also indicated that occasionally you give, or sometimes you «ive! the benefit of the doubt to the claimant when there is a question of whether he had made reasonable efforts. Is there any sincle standard that is used by the fact-finding examiners on decidinn one way or the other, on whether the person gets their benefits? A You mean on giving them benefit of the doubt? Q Are they told that they are to apply « specific standard, such as the person gets benefits if they have 4 reasons able doubt that the person had not made sufficient efforts? Is there any type of standard, a single, uniform standard that they are asked to apply, when they have a doubt in their mind? A It all depends on why there is any doubt in their mind as to whether they had made a reasonable effort. o, there's, I'm sorry I don't understand you. If its handled on its own individual merits and there is some doubt as to why, as to whether or not this individual should be paid, then the doubt would either stem from the fact that the individual doesn't understand the eireumstances or there is somereason why he nasn't looked for work, which may create an issue of availability! Or there may be an issue that possibly he had a job pendine and | it didn't materialize for him and if this could be verified, co be given benefit of the doubt and paid benefits. it's so senera), (321 at ==. = It's dirficult because everythine is handled on,each case varies. © ‘That's true. And isn't it true that, et least in some cases, the identical set of facts presented to the nine eifferent fact-finders who are emnloyed rieht now, that there might very well, on questionable cases, there micht very well be a different decision reached by different fact-finders ? A ‘Snere might be. 9 Are you familiar, ‘rs. Smarz, with a policy letter, whieh i'll show vou in a moment, I believe the date of it is 1956, relating te the statutory requirement of reasonable efforts to obtain work. I'll show it to you and ask you if you are familiar with it? A I'm familiar with it. and re-read them and review them. Every so often I take them © Yor the record I'm referring to a “Disputed Clains Policy Letter", with the identifvine number SRU,A60H directed to all unemployment compensation manarers signed by Ceorre Walker, Director. The date of the policy letter is October 22, 1956 and the policy letter attempts, does it not, to define what constitutes reasonable effort? A That's it's not a hard and fast rule, yes. © Now this policy letter indicates a number of variables or factors that might influence whether or not the person had made reasonable effort and I'd like to go into that a little hit, 133] not just what's in the letter but what actually comes up in your office as cases come in. Would one factor that would be taker, into account by the fact-finding examiner to determine whether or not reasonable effort had been made, be whether or not the person had a car? A It might be, yes. © Would a person who had a car be expected to qo to more places than a person who did not have a car? To conduct amore far-ranging search for work? Q Perhaps a more far-ranging one. @ Would a person who had access two days a week to the use of a car of a friend or of a relative be held to a higher standard on working than a person who did not have a car at all? A Well there would probably be other factors that would enter into that also. Q But that could be one of the factors that would have to be weighed by the fact-finding examiner? A Maybe. Yes. OQ I'm sorry, are you saying that he should, but mirht not? Or that maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't? A That would be one of the factors but then, in addition| to that there would be other factors that would determine the decision also. Q What type of weight? A The tyve of work that the individual does would enter into that. © What was the employment situation in Bridrenort durin: June, July and August of this summer? Would you describe it as, many Jobs available, or fewer than usual, or a very tight labor market with few jobs available? A There were some jobs that were available. . © But would you deseribe it as a fairly, as a ticht labor market? Do you know what the unemployment rate was in Bridcenort during June, July and August? A I would say that, oh, I'd have to check the statistical’ fieures. Q But did you, was that information nassed on to the fact-finding examiners during each month? Are they informed of what the unemploynent rate is? No. They're not? Not the percentage ficure, no. In the policy claims letter referred to earlier dateu October 22, 1956, it states that it is not intended to recy ire So >» BD claimants to make futile trios to employers’ »Sirine balls Just for the sake of building up a record of job seeking when there are not many joteavailable. Do your fact-finders take into account the job market when they're making a determination as to reasonable effort? | C—O ee efforts. Bla- A ‘%o a certain extent. 2 But they are not given the information on a revular basis of what the economic indicators show for availability of jobds? A Well they may have a general idea, in discussion, but I don't actually give them the information on a percentare basis, the actual statistics. © So that you're not sure to whet extent they takethat into account on their fact-finding decisions? & (unintelligible) Q Have you ever seen it described as one of the factors that influenced the decision of a fact-finder when he writes nis fact-findinr report, as being the basis for his decision, or one of the factors? A Not thet I remeuicr. ° “rr. Blair is employed in your office, is he not? Yes. What is his.. Pact-fincer. Ke described the fact-finding function on reasonable e*fort to obtain work, in a heartns which is an exhibit in this 7 >? |B PF case, as bein= basically a matter of jud-ment on the part of tne fact-findin« examiner when he's making decisions on reasonsle Would you concur with that description? [30] A What was his description? @ That in the end it comes down to good judmment, on whether they employ good judgment or not,on making a determina- tion as to whether the person has used reasonable effort. A Well the whole intent of reasonable effort is that the individual is making efforts to obtain, making efforts, so that he may obtain employment from these efforts in the future. Ané this is all taken into consideration. the judement of the interviewer as to whether or not this is Now it would be on actual reasonable effort. Q Prom your experience what would you say would be the average, if there is an average length of time for a fact-findine interview on the issue of reasonable effort to obtain, to work? Would it be 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes? A Well they vary. 10 minutes. 15 minutes to a half-hour, sometimes © Do you keep figures on the number of fact-findine interviews that are conducted in your office on a daily, weekly, or monthly basis? A Yes. @ Do you know how many were conducted during the peak periog of claims during this summer? Por example, do you know approximately how many were conducteu Guring June, July or August? 87) 83a- No. I could get those figures. Would you make a note? You want them? Yes. You keep them on monthly basis? Yes, Hartford. Statistics would have that in > DoD > GO Hart ford. MR. WASIK: You're talking about the interviews? THE DEPONENT: ‘es, they want the number of interviews, the fact-finding interviews held during June, July and August, of 1972. MR. CREANE: Not all of them, really. interested in the one that involves fact-finding inter- views other than initial eligibility. We don't want the fact-finding interviews or predetermination hearing on We're separation issues. TKE DEPONENT: I would have to check that. I think they have a >reakcown on that. BY _“R. CREANE: @. Do you know how many claims, initial and continuing claims, were filed in your office last week or the week before that, just approximately? % oO) 24 ee [33] ee ee —_—--s> A Between 5,000 to 7,000. Q That would be both new claims and continued? & And continued. The figures varies, that's why I can't give you a definite figure. Those are all obtainable. Q There's a definition by the Department of reasonable effort to obtain work, a statutory requirement for elicibility, contained in this 1956 Policy Letter. I'll read it to you and ask you if that is senerally the standard that you try to annly and to have your fact-finding examiners apply. In paractranh two S states, "reasonable efforts to obtain work are such effort as we would ordinarily expect anyone to make who is honestly look- ing for work". A Yes. Q That is a very difficult standard to apyly, isn't it Mrs. Smarz, in all honesty? A Is it difficult? Q Yes. A Yes, it is difficult. That's why I try to cay that it has to be handled on each individual case. Q In order to handle it on an individual case, to make a fair determination on an individual case, the fact-finding examiner would have to know quite a bit about the claimant, would 39] -85a- he not. He'd have to know the man's background, the size of his family, his past work record, how badly he needs employment, what type of man he is, his physchological makeup, he would have to know quite a bit, wouldn't he, to make an individual deter- mination? What is reasonable for that man might not be reasonable for another man, isn't that right? A Well it's impossible to know all that about an individual as far as that's concerned, but the type of work that he's seeking and something about his background in that particular work and where it's available and what efforts he has made to get that type of work would be my main concern. Q There is in fact, no written list of all of the factors which might influence a decision on whether a reason- able effort to find work has been made, isn't that correct? A Hot to my knowledge. @ And in fact, such an exhaustive list would probably not be possible, would it, since there are so many factors which might influence a particular determination by 4 fact-finding examiner? A That's true. Q To your knowledge, what written standards, relating to reasonable efforts to obtain work, what writter standards or policy letters are available to the fact-finding examiners in your office other than this policy letter dated 1956? [4] To give them guidance in making their decisions? A Why I'd have to check all my Policy Letters to de- termine it, because I have a breakout on it. There's a recent memorandum that came out over the signature of Carl Eiseman. Q I can show you some recent Policy Letters and you can tell me if there are any others, to your knowled¢e. [1'1l) give you a moment to look them over. Is there a requirement, written or unwritten at the Bridgeport unemployment office that persons, when they fill out their UC-55 form, if they list all of the places that they visited all in one day for that two week period, that that would not be reasonable effort? In other words @ person went to all in one day, the six places or seven places? A What I would be concerned about in that instance, anc what we would question, is what about the other nine wrorkxin« days in the week, in the two-week period, and why didn't they make efforts during that period, because it mirht create an issue of availability. Q Were claimants told that they had to have at least six employers sign the card in order to be eligible? A The employer isn't required to sign the card. | | ! | 2 To list six places of employment that they've visitec , were they told that they had to? ——_ (4) as -87a- A Jt was not an official notification that they were to tell these people, if that is what happened. But this is, there's no official number or anything in reference to this. Q Suppose a person, person A, went to six places and listed them on his UC-45 form and made no other efforts to obtair, work; person B went to 5 places, or four places, but also made other efforts, they looked in the newspaper, they called friends, they made a number of other efforts to obtain work. How would a fact-finder arrive at a decision as to whether either or both of those were eligible for benefits? A We would just arrive at the #easonableness of the situation in both cases. Q The reasonableness being what the fact-finder feels is reasonable? ! A That's right. In the particular instance. talking about a man that lists four places and then he asx friends. Say that this man is.. Q And he reads the newspaper everyday. A And he reads the newspaper everyday and he has certain’ qualifying skills and he knows that there may be a job onen in ¢ | plant and perhaps with asking friends he may get this position. That's reasonable. Isn't that what you ~r I would do to obtain You're a position. EE we {42] Q But isn't it also quite likely that the nerson who had listed six places on their UC-45 form would have gotten his check with no problem at all, as long as it was filled in pro- perly. The employment security aide or the claims interviewer in all likelihood would have, if the form was filled out proverly have given him his check if no other question arose? A It's possible. © Whereas the person who had perhaps only filled in four places might very well have been referred for a fact-finding interview since he had not filled out the forms completely? A It's possible. But on the basis after being inter- viewed he was not denied benefits. © Well, it is a hypothetical that I'm giving you. A You know this could happen. Well yes, I know, I understand that, but this does happen. Q Is it possible that, of your nine fact-finding examincr- || we'll say, seven would feel that the «ffort was reasonable, looking, reading the newspaper, and asking friends and that one or two of the examiners might say, "Well, how do I imow that he really cid that? He didn't fill out the form and ” find that he did not use reasonable effort". Isn't that possible? A It's possible, but I sure would question it. Q But in all likelihood? (431 MR. TAMIS: MR. CREANE: MR. TAMIS: John, can I ask a question? 0.K. Just a quick question. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. TAMIS: © Is it the understanding of claimants in order to collect cheeks on a bi-weekly visit that they have to oresent the UC-45 form with at least six employers on it? - MR. WASIK: — — She can't testify what the understandine of a particular claimant is. | MR. TAMIS: Well that's a good voint. rephrase the question. T*l2 BY MR. TAMIS: © Is it the policy of the claims examiners on the beneti line to give checks when the UC-45 form has six employers listed on it spread across the ten working days that are in issuc? A Yes, they probably will. Q Alright, so we're starting from that supposition. BY MR. CREANE: Q On the other hand, it's not automatic proof that you've satisfied the reasonable effort simply because it's filled out. It does not automatically mean that you have to fet your checks, does it? You indicated that there's no written policy on 3 s-o ¢ PD Based on your experience? | A Based on experience, yes. And it would be on the individual case. If there is some doubt in an examiner's m‘nd to resolve an issue they may use that to verify it. © I'm just wondering thourh, do you know how often this might happen. If this is the usual case or that the usual cases are that there is no question? A The usual case. MR. CREANE: TI have an objection to this onc. I think she indicated that she couldn't really answer that question. That she really couldn't give o fair answer to it. REDIRECT BY MR. CREANE: © On, the question of translaters in your office, for particularly Spanish-speaking claimants, whose responsibility is oe wee eee eee ee woe -103a- this to provide an interpreter? Is it the claimant's respon- sibility or the Denartment's responsibility? A That's hard to say. If we can assist the individual in any way, we would I've never really thought of it that way. do it. If the claimant can bring someone with him, we just ask them to bring him. I've never considered it being anyone's responsibility other than an attempt to resolve the issue. We try to help them in any way we can but, I've never even, I've never thought of that. If its possible and we can resolve, we can present them with someone to assist them we try to resolve the issue. If we have someone that can do the interpretine in the office, or assist it and he's in the processing of the clain, we do it. If we can't do it we put the burden of responsibility on the individual to present someone who can interpret for him. Very often the examiner on the line, if he sees that there is language barrier, will ask them to bring someone in to the officc. Q What you're saying I believe, correct me if I'm wron-, is that the Department will be as helpful as its resources will [57] permit, but that ultimately its the claimant's responsibility to have someone there present, so that he will understand what is Deine said to him and so that he can present his facts to the Department? A If we can help them we can. If we can't, we ask him © bring someone, yes. PEFR T UST ee A> (s¥1 Q And that if you can't help him and he doesn't brinc anyone, in your opinion, its his responsibility and you've done all you can? A What else can we do? © Well if you ask my opinion you could have sufficient Snanish-speaking personnel so that the Spanish-speaking claimants have the same access to the government services. A I don't have a problem with Spanish-speakine rersonne as far as that's concerned because as I said I have two youn ladies that do speak fluent Spanish and they're very goo! in that respect. We do have say, some Greek people that will come in or Portugese and there just isn't any one that can speak the language. You will get different dialects that are difficult to understand and it's almost impossible to provide you with an interpreter for ali of these. Q Do you have any idea of the aporoximately the prer- centare of your claimants that are Spanish-speakinc? A No TI don't. Q You couldn't hazard a rough guess? A Wo. Q The two Spanish-speaking employees that you have, -10Sa- assume are occasionally allowed to fo to lunch or they're sick occasionally are they not? There isn't always someone there on cuty all times is there. A Wo. Q I have no further questions. Do you “Mr. Kelly? REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY: © I just wanted to ask, you mentioned that you had some ——— ee ew ee | em>loyees who were working while they were soine to school. Are the two Spanish-speaking employees full-time employees, or are they working only on a vart-time basis? A Pull-time basis. Q Pull-time employees. How long have they been «ith the Bridgeport office. A They started I think in December of 1971 and January of 1972, I think both of them came in. © Prior to that time were there any Spanish-sneakin= employees in the Bridreport office? A I became manarer in December of 1971, so I can't. © Did you work in that office before? A Years aro. © O.K. But in that period, say from December of 1/1, back five years ago, you have no knowledge of what the employment situation was? [s9}| ! [ec] A No TI haven't. It wouldn't be, it was very vacue. I wouldn't know of the staffing pattern. Q What is the employment, what is their job title, these two Spanish-speaking employees? A Employment security aides. Q Level? A Yes, I think they're two. Q Two. Both of them are level two? A I think so. Q And that they wouldn't be involved in fact-findinr determinations? A No. Q I have no further questions. BY MR. CREANE: Q Just one final question. The fact-finding examiners when they're hired, what type of training or experience are they miven before they begin their actual duties? A Well, it varies. There is a certain amount of train- ing that I, as a manager, would give them. © Would you deseribe that? A They have the policy letters that I give them to read and review. We have, they're acquainted with the Inter- pretive Digest, the laws, the fact-fincing forms. Brief basic [ei -107a- outlines as to what they would need to compile into a revort. Discussions on the various types of fact-findines that may arise. They're told about the inserts, I acquire some books for them on interviewing. They start with some of the simpler cases, sort of an on the job training. Their cases are reviewed by the super visor and go through a six-month probationary period and any unusual cases that arise are discussed. They're always free to ask any questions that may arise, to check anything that we have available in the office. If anything unusual comes up, it's referred to the adjudication unit in Hartford. Q Of the nine fact-finding examiners that are oresently working there, how many have come to work in your office durins the past year? liow many of them were working there a year a~o? A I think 411 but one. They weren't all workin- in the capacity of fact-finders. They were promoted. One eare fro. another office up state. She was promoted and civen the annoint- ment in the Bridgeport office. ‘The other.. © So, how many were working as fact-finders a year a-o? If you don't know, don't answer. A I'd say four or five. @ Out of a total of how many fact-finders a year ano? A Actual fact-finders, were two. There was another title for a group that were brought in and they were brournt in to train for fact-finding. I can't think of the title off-hand. -_-- Weeeeiet [e3] MR. KELLY: Excuse me, were they called the intermittent claims examiner? TMé DEPONENT: Oh, no. I'll get that nane i for you if vyou'a like because I know that they had a different title for that. But then they were appointed, they took the exam and were appointed as fact-finders. They worked in the capacity of fact-finders. BY MR. CREANE: \ © You indicated in response to a question from ‘r. | Wasik that in normal times, whatever they might be, that it is the practice to give periodic redeterminations? A Periodic interviews, yes. © And what is the, how does that work? A Well, initially-- Q By the way, are we in normal times now at the Bridce- port office? Are neriodic redeterminations given on regularly scheduled basis? A Wot quite. The claimant is given a benefit richts interview and all the eligibility requirements are explained to them. Then they file their first compensable clain. © And when the workload is not? A When the workload is normal, we are operating normally their eligibility requirements are all explained and during (231 the course of this interview any questions that may arise with them are discussed. All the, and the examiner will determine at that time the type of work the individual is looking for, the amount, the age of the individual, the marital status of woman, man and whether or not there may be any factors that would in- volve his availability for employment. And then they're coded for periodic re-interviews. Q How does that work, the periodic re-interviews? A Well, say for a woman that has children and she's seeking work. She was laid off, or she quit her job because she has a problem, a babysitting problem, what have you. She quit her job, she's now available for work and she's looking for work. She meets the eligibility requirement at this time and we would — re-code her for an interview every fourth week. Q So that the re-coding for a periodic reintervicw-- She would be re-coded. Would be if there was some special circumstances? Special circumstances that may be involved. 2 >. > But it doesn't mean that everyone would be coded for a periodic interview? A Every fourth week, no. And then an older person who is available for work and making efforts to get work, seeking wor we may code him or her every six or eight weeks depending, on what the circumstances are. Se eee. . b&b {o4) -110a- © That answers my question. A It would be set in that manner. MR. CREANE: Don, do you have any further questions. “MR. WASIK: Wo. , MR. CREANE: Thank you very much Mrs. Smarz. THE DEPONENT: Now you mentioned somevthinr, let meclarifya point. You mentioned something about the hearinrs and there was something that I wanted to clarify with you. As I explained that when an individual is seated for a hearing, now, and this is one point that I try to stress with my people that they can have the hearing now or the hearing, is they can have it scheduled for them and if it is rescheduled they are paid their benefits. You asked me why I thoucht there were so few of those re-scheduled hearinss. Wasn't that one ecnebaed that you asked? MR. CREANE: Well, in fact, so few that vou could not recall a single instance where on the issue of reasonable effort. THE DEPONENT: For reasonable effort it nas arisen. Gs MR. CREANE: Yes. THE DEPONENT: I can't really recall it. We give them a brief explanation that they have the right to have a hearing now or the hearing later and they choose now, so we just proceed with it. MR. CREANE: Do you know if your fact-findin‘ examiners always tell the person that they can ect their checks now if they choose to have their hearing later? THE DEPONENT: No, I can't honestly say that they would probably say that. And this is one thinc I wanted to clarify with you. But if an issue does arise, and the individual does say that, does request to have a hearing scheduled, he is paid and that's the procedure that follows. If it's determined at the hearing that he is ineligible for benefits an overpayment would be sct up, MR. CREATE: But, that is, ordinarily, the claimant would be told you can have the hearing now or you can have it later? THE DEPONENT: Then they elect. MR. CREANE: O.K. Thank you very much. -113a- COMMECT] CUT DEP RIMPNT [ike eee i Be sm | Ht inh a i Ny ne Be abl : at i a Boa a £3 33 B g ROA HEHE ; Pl. Bx. confereme of een bom + sorres March 20, 1973 Bridgeport -112a- ) ) ) I, Margarita Torres, an employee of Bridgeport Legal Services, Inc., do hereby certify that the deposition of Dated At Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 20th day of / I further certify that the witness was sworn by March, 1973. to Rules 30 (a) and (b) (4) of the Pederal Rules of Civil Procedure, at 412 East Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut on Thursday, February 8, 1973 at 1:45 p.m. MRS. ELEANOR H. SMARZ was taken under oath before me pursuant counsel and her testimony was recorded on tape and was sub- Attorney Ira Horowitz to tell the truth, was examined by sequently transcribed by me as herebdefore appears. STATE OF CONNECTICUT COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD [ce] - ) =2....... Any oe og ergs 0) pee 26 R) 20) Saryeued sopis 4 OO] OY ISB PERIEIOPTS | “PRN B19 BIE[> FIG GS HONHDzEWO? UI Spee HivemareLs vy: Hy Apes? Aqnenm y (pepecs j epte seqe 20) Age wredne “woe ray Goo! ree pp Sek *G a ee e.0e8e . bs eeBuooy OBL 2446O> SB OW VE Save tt SST TST TTT TEE ETE ST PST a ’ ‘ (O8(e Ope Feqre 28) Perr Hree> F228/8 LaqO PES ‘SeOTEs 10qe) “S1e40;du2 w019q 181) PET AT INADEYD LelNd © SIO] SFG) CO Fe11ee SEEw 10 212/40) OF penebe: soe ase Graheléug (wervegn> (298(@ Pee Foo, 1weBAEd ROA Ghia Pel ves end pee Perel dwor oq Lee SIO ThE) wae mit js i eel i i Hie H a Pe : in i : ai33f aaa a | Bh off UR | Wane Hi AG titel | a a He if i i Hh 3 3 i ie it i} il Faia Hee ISS ME RS Cres Pl. Bx. 28 cil ? 4 i i ay ei , m Pei Ss oe Gh +3: ifs 2u*3 ue Ph Ere 7° a a 0 Pa RS, ee ~~ »s 7 -129a- CONNECTICUT DEPART ENT Security Di sci | i rf i i We Hii i al | . a i i aH $5833} a i . a a3 Pl. Ex. 286 ALL U. C. MANAGERS AND PACT FINDINO EXA:DIERS f the fact an var Spon wc ay ey nett __ there are section, depending on ct matter of ay A yh, upon to employ a be a brief yh aa be of the iesued. ip oh it 3 45 ele ty aaa iG faint: 3th . ets il al ee Hid i tt ul : H i ; F if He ae : Hifi i ~ Gaighed ° N iA a | me —_ teal AP Ret ts mre, ees SUBJECT: et -I3la- rom: E90. 50 INTEROFFICE MEMORANDUM (nev. d-700 23 Ex. 29 m TO ALL LOCAL OFFICE MANAGERS, FIELD AND CENTRAL pare, October 6, 1972 OFFICE SUPERVISORS °80% Theodore W. Hatcher, U.C. Director CLAIMANTS MUST BE ADVISED OF THEIR RIGHTS At the recent meeting of managers, Commissioner Fusari and our \ Executive Director Mr. Eisenman reiterated and confirmed the policy ‘ of this department. Claimants are to be fully advised of their rights, informed clearly and unequivocally what section or sections of the law are involved, and they should be informed of what they are expected to do by way of job search and exposure to the labor market. This is not to say that claimants should be told how to “beat the system", but a claimant under the law, as interpreted by many court decisions, is entitled to know the lew and know why he or she is being declared ineligible or disqualified for benefits. If a person restricts his availability or indicates a job type preference which turns out to be restrictive, the claimant should be told that he or she could disqualify himself or herself. Now that the claim load is at a lower level we expect that all “4 claimants will receive a Benefits Rights Interview and that periodic reinterviews are accomplished. Please see that these instructions are given to all employees that are involved. TWH: EIT: im ter mye Lo Khe |. 22 ee ee | «in -140a- 10. | have lost all of the benefits due me for this period because | was never informed what my obligations were and was not given a prior hearing. 11. At no time did | speak with any Spanish speaking employee of the department or receive any written communi- cation from them in Spanish. 12. I believe the e :tire unemployment compensation proce- dure is unfair and discriminates against those, like myself, who have trouble understanding the English language. 13. This affidavit has been prepared in cooperation with my attorney and an interpreter and accurately reflects my ex- periences and opinions. STATE OF CONNECTICUT , COUNTY OF FAIRFIELD ‘ss. Bridgeport September 6, 1972 JUAN MIRANDA Personally appeared Juan Miranda, signer of the foregoing affidavit, who swore to the truth of the above before me. DONALD H. Tamis Commissioner of the Superior Court -l4la- Pl. Ex. 32 SUPPLEMENTARY AFFIDAVIT OF JUAN MIRANDA STATE OF CONNECTICUT , yee tanta ss. Bridgeport, October 18, 1972 1, JUAN MIRANDA, being duly sworn, depose and say: 1. My unemployment benefits were terminated effective August 13, 1972 as more fully explained in my previous affi- davit in this case, dated September 6, 1972. | appealed this de- cision and my appeal was heard before the Unemployment Commissioner on October 17, 1972. | have no idea when a de- cision will be rendered. 2. I have been without income for myself and my family since my unemployment benefits were terminated in August. I have no present means of supporting my family, other than handouts from other people. | am unable to pay my rent and 1 am unable to buy enough food for my family. | have tried to find work everywhere but the jobs are not there. 3. Each two weeks since my benefits were terminated | have gone to the Unemployment Office and showed a fully completed form UC-45, showing the places | had looked for work during the two weeks. Each time the worker barely looks at the card and tells me I get no checks. Sometimes the worker simply tells me to wait until my initial appeal is heard. On Oc- tober 11, 1972 as I testified at my appeal hearing on October 17, the worker would not even take my written statement as to my efforts to find work. 4. The appeal hearing on October 17, was the first time I could tell my story and have someone listen Fut | don’t know when he will decide my case because he said he is a very busy man with many cases. Even if | get my back benefits | know that | will never be treated fairly by the workers at the Unem- ployment Office on Washington Avenue and they will stop my checks again right away. -142a- 5. This affidavit has been prepared with the assistance of my attorney and a translator and accurately reflects my experi- ence and opinions. JUAN MIRANDA Subscribed and sworn to before me this 18th day of Oc- tober, 1972. JOHN M. CREANE Commissioner of Superior Court -143a- Def. Ex. A AFFIDAVIT Bion Mangan 1 Wethersfield, Conn. October 17, 1972 I, Carl D. Eisenman, being first duly sworn according tu Law, state the following: 1. I am the Executive Director of the Employment Se- curity Division of the Connecticut State Labor Department, and as such, | am familiar with the laws and regulations concern- ing the adminisration of the Unemployment Compensation Law. Pursuant to State Law, (Sec. 31-237 G.S. Conn.) | administer the law subject to the supervision of the State Labor Commis- sioner. 2. [am also familiar with the federal laws concerning un- employment compensation with which Connecticut laws must conform if Connecticut is to receive the federal funds necessary to administer the unemployment compensation program. 3. lam also familiar with federal directives in the form of policy letters, especially those concerning the type of hearing to be given claimants whose eligibility for benefits has already been determined, but who are subject to termination of benefits for one reason or another. 4. On or about November 23, 1971, | received Unemploy- ment Insurance Policy Letter No. 1145, dated November 12, 1971, which contained an attachment entitled “Procedures for Implementing the Java Decision Requirements.” On page 14 of this attachment, Section VI A states: “Issues Arising During a Claim Series When an issue arises during a claim series and the claim- ant is the only interested party, no substantive changes from existing procedures are required. A typical situation would involve a claimant who, during his regular inier- view, reports an illness during the week being claimed that might warrant denial of benefits for the week. All necessary actions can be taken on the spot, and the claimant may be informed of the issues and of his right -144a- to hearing. Fact-finding can then take place, and a de- termination can be made. When an issue arising during the claim series involves any interested party in addition to the claimant, notice and an opportunity to be heard must be given to such other party. The determination of the issues may not be made until such notice and opportunity has been pro- vided. Such determination will be considered on time within the meaning of the Court's requirement for prompt- ness if issued no later than the end of the week follow- ing the week in which the issue arises.” 5. On or about June 22, 1972, I received Unemployment Insurance Policy Letter No. 1189, dated June 7, 1972, which concerned che Torres and Dinger Decisions by the U.S. Supreme Court. On page 2 of said letter, it is stated that “The decisions in Torres and Dinger support the position the Manpower Ad- ministration has taken that informal predetermination proce- dures are sufficient and that there need not be a “due process” hearing before a determination or redetermination suspending or terminating benefits.” 6. It is and has been the policy of the Unemployment Compensation Department, statewide, to provide informal hearings pursuant to the U.S. Department of Labor directives and the requirements of the Java decision in those cases where benefits are terminated, suspended, or reduced. In such cases where another interested party is involved such a hearing is held, but only after the interested party also has notice and is given an opportunity to attend. 7. Eligibility for benefits is determined on a weekly basis, pursuant to statute and case law, even though the reporting for interviews and pickup of checks may be done bi-weekly. Thus, a claimant could be determined ineligible for benefits one week, thus not receiving his check, and then be determined eligible the following week, receiving his check for that week. Cart D. ElseNMAN Executive Director Subscribed and sworn to before me this 17th day of Oc- tober, 1972. Commissioner of the Superior Court -145a- Ref. Ex. B STATE OF CONNECTICUT Lasoa Derantment —Emrcomment Secumrry Division UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION DEPARTMENT I, Petra Collazo, being first duly sworn according to Law, state the following: 1. I am an Employment Security Aide II, working in the Bridgeport office of the State Unemp)oyment Compensation Dept. 2. 1 speak Spanish fluently and part of my duties include acting as interpreter for various claimants who file for benefits in this office. 3. On June 27, 1972 and on August 8, 1972, I gave com- plete Benefit Righte Interviews to Delia Triana, SS#048-48-0259,. That is, I fully explained to her, in Spanish, her rights and obligations concerning her collection of benefits. 4. On July 24, 1972, I interpreted for Delia Triana during her regularly scheduled interview. The infor- mation she gave then was apparently the basis for her diequalification. Dated at Bridgeport, Connecticut, this 13th day of 1972 ZaZ__Petra Collazo _ Subscribed and Sworn to before me, Donald E. Wasik, the undersigned k Donald E. Wasik Commissioner of Superior Court -147a- STATE OF CONNECTICUT ROBERT K. KILLIAN MALine 2008 488 a'TORNEY CEner a SerL Or wen’ SECURITY Gry lerOn (46-7) TEL) (208 C00 see0 ATTORWEY GENERAL'S OF FICE MART FORO, CONNECTICUT Certs May 18, 1973 The Honorable J. Joseph Smith The Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld The Honorable Jon 0. Newman United States Courthouse 450 Main Street Hartford, Connecticut 96103 Re: Larry Steinberg, et al vs. Jack A. Pusari, Commissioner of Labor, The Administrator, "memployment Compensation Act. Civil Action Ho. 4, 104. Your Hon« ts; This letter is to notify you of a new position which my client, the defendant Administrator in the above-named case, is now taking with regard to the plaintiff Cecil Paskewitz. Hopefully, this will eliminate some of your work in going over the massive amount of material in this file. As you know, the factual circumstances regarding Mr. Paskewitz's claim are different from those of the other three named plaintiffs. While these three were given an informal hear- ing concerning a non-monetary determination, namely eligibility. Mr. Paskewitz was given no hearing at all. Wo hearing was given because the issue was 4 monetary one only; that is, it dealt only with the initial question of entitlement. While this is a rela- tively automatic determination which is based solely on whether ov not the claimant has sufficient wage credits, and is an action which was taken by the defendant as trustee of the unemployment compensation fund which he is obliged to protect, we now recognize that redeterminations are sometimes necessary because of error or misinformation, and that due process would not be given such @ claimant unless he were given a hearing. The Honorable J. Joseph Smith -2- The Honorable M. Joseph Blumenfeld The Honorable Jon 0. Newman May 18, 1973 Accordingly. the defendant now concedes in this case that its former policy in not providing a hearing in such cases may violate the due process clause of the 14th Amendment to the Constitution. It is submitted, however, that the statutes pur- suant to which said policy was followed are not unconstitutional. The defendant, therefore, effective immediately is changing its policy so that when such questions arise in the future. unemploy- ment compensation benefits will continue to be paid until a written notice is sent to the claimant notifying him to appear at @ place. date. and time certain for a hearing, and advising him of the particular issue raised, and of his right to be represented by counsel. Counsel for the plaintiffs have already been notified by telephone of our change of position, and a carbon copy of this letter is being sent to both Attorneys Creane and Kelley. In addition. we will attempt to draft a consent order to be filed with our brief for the Court to consider in rendering its decision. I believe it imperative to advise the Court that although this claimant's rights may have been violated because benefits were terminated without a hearing. the Court should be mindful of the fact that Mr. Paskewitz nevertheless received 26 weeks of payments to which he was not legally entitled. As of this writing, it appears certein that no attempt will be made to recoup this over- payment. Thus, this claimant has received and will be able to keep $2,702.00 in benefits (including dependency allowance). It would appear, therefore, that this is a deminimus violation. Your indulgence in this unusual presentation of this mater.al will be greatly appreciated. Respectfully submitted, Robert K. Killian Attorney General By: Donald E. Wasik DEW : msd Assistant Attorney General ec; John M. Creane, Esq. Paymond J. Kelley Sylvester Markowski, Clerk -149a- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT (Title Omitted in Printing) ATTACHMENT I Proposed Consent Order As part of any order which the Cc rt may enter in render- ing its decision in this case, the following is a proposed order which the Court may wish to consider. “The defendant Administrator is hereby ordered to put into effect at once, if it has not already done so, the following policy: Whenever the defendant has reason to believe that a re- determination must be made either as to the question of entitle- ment itself or as to any change affecting the amount of unem- ployment compensation benefits, then before such a change can become effective, written notice of a hearing at a place, date and time certain must be sent to the claimant at his last known mailing address, said notice apprising the claimant of the issue or issues to be raised at said hearing, and advising him that he may be represented by counsel at said hearing, and a written notice of the decision after said hearing must be mailed to the claimant.” DEFENDANT By: Ropert K. KILLIAN Attorney General DoNnaALD E. Wasik Assistant Attorney General (Certification Omitted in Printing) -1S0a- AFFIDAVIT Srare oF CONNECTICUT Wethersfield, Conn June 8, 1973 1, Theodore W. Hatcher, being duly sworn according to Law, state the following: 1. lam the Director of the Unemployment Compensation Department of the Employment Security Division of the Con- necticut Labor Department, and as such, I am familiar with the laws and regulations, policies, and procedures concerning the administration of the Unemployment Compensation Law. 2. 1 am also familiar with the Department's procedures when a local office receives a route slip from the Employment Service Office indicating that a claimant has refused a referral to a suitable job or has refused a suitable job which was of- fered. In such cases, a notice is sent to the claimant, unless he is scheduled to appear within two days, said notice scheduling a hearing for a date and time certain and advising claimant of the reason for the hearing and that he can bring witnesses and be represented at said hearing. If the notice is not sent because the claimant is due to appear within two days, he is advised when he reports that he can have a hearing then or he can wait approximately five days. If a claimant asks for a later hearing and asks for his check in the meantime, a hearing is scheduled and he is given his check unless he has already given the ex- aminer facts which would definitely disqualify him, i.e., he was in the hospital the last two weeks or was on a fishing trip for two weeks, etc. If the information concerning the refusal of a suitable job comes from a prospective employer who is an interested party (one whose merit rating account has been charged because of the termination of the claimant's employment), a notice of the hearing is also sent to said employer. Tueopore W. Hatcuer, Director Unemployment Compensation Department Subscribed and sworn to before me this Sth day of June, 1973. Commissioner of the Superior Court -1Sla- UNITED STATS DISTRICT . DISTRICT OF COMMECTICUT rf fe eeaeeeeee#e««« rere ee = = = «= so LARRY STEINBERG AMD CECIL PASKEWITS, ' ST AL AND DELIA TRIAMA AND JUAN MIRANDA, DFTs RVENDSS , ‘ vs e Civil 1s1064 JACK A. FUBARI, COMMISSIONER OF LABOR, . THE ADMINISTRATOR, THE UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT, STW OF COMMECTICUT ‘ -_7senrerer eee ee ee eee eeeeececeee & @artford, Com. may 14, 1973 PORTION OF TRANSCRIPT rom: SON. J. JOSEPH GHITE, U.8.C.3. =. Kt. OOM BOeWwED, GU see S08. 5ON 0, MOUS, 0.8.0.3. SANOGRS GALE © RUSSELL CORT HES BTENOT + PE REPORTERS ree hanes STURT fos CHRO STREET MARTFORO. CONNECTICUT Ee HAVEN CONNECTICUT -152a- | 2a) JUDGE GUITH: Who is going to argue? MR, CRBANE: We heve numerous stipulations, and @ stipulation to an index of exhibits, which I believe your Honore have « copy of the list of exhibits, Plaintiffs’ Bxhibite, in your file, and there is a stipulation that -- es to the sdmissibility of all of the exhibits. There was about « fourteen page stipulation es to facts which wee mailed last week, but unfortunately went to Hartford and mew Haven, but it is here today, but apparently no one has had an opportunity to review it ye t. There is also an -- several additional stipulations end rather than putting the parties on to give live testimony, the parties have stipulated thet previous affidavits which are on file with the Court may be made « part of this record at this hearing for all of the four named plaintiffs. JUDGE SMITH: They may be received. How far @o your exhibits go so far? MR. CREANE: The stipulation is as to numbers, 1 through 30, your Honor. Included in that ere numberous Feports that are submitted to the Department of Labor, weveral depositions that were taken by the plaintiffs. we heave @ stipulation -- JUDGE BIAWEMPFELD: In this manille folder -- MR, CREAME: They were #11 marked last Friday, SANDERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CESTIF EO STENOTY PER PEP OR TEMS 205 Chur STREET WEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT 780 MAIN STREET HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT -153a- (3a) your Honor, and hopefully everything is in order. They were marked in the clerk's office. JUDGE GMITH: Are these affidavits in addition MR, CREAME: They are in addition. JUDGE SMITH: Mark them with 31. MR, CREAME; Thirty-one is an additional exhibit, but Mr. Wasik wants to object to the relevancy of it, mot to its authenticity but to its relevancy. What it does is provide a breakdown on the tins Gelay between the time « person files an appeal before the Unemployment Commissioner and the date he gets a written decision. One of our earlier exhibits, I believe it is number-4, one of the forms that is submitted to the Department of Labor, the breakdown is up to 75 days and over. This is one of the facts that hes been discussed in all of the litigation involving the issue before the Court as to how much of a time delay there is between the time you get scm type of hearing et the local office and if you process s hearing before the Commissioner. The period of delay has been considered relevent by all the Courts. JUDGE SUITE. Is this the mean time over & certain pericd? SANOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CERTIF/EO STENOTY OE REPORTERS 008 CAROw STREET TSO MAAS STE NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT -154a- [4a) MR, CREAME: Yes, the time between the Claimant's benefits are terminated, files en appeal and gets ® written decision from the Commissioner after having its hearing. JUDGE BIAMENFELD: Based on what, on examination of the records? MR, CREANE: Yes, The Depertment, in Exhibit 4, breaks it down by up to 75 days and over. That is the final category on information submitted to the Department of Labor. At the deposition of the Commissioner we asked him to supply « further breakdown on the above 75 days. He 414 it for one of the districts, and in order to save him time- JUDGE BLOMEMFELD: You need longer than 75 Gays to make your point. MR, CREAME: We have it broken down to 150 Gays and over. There is no question as to the authenticity of the figures but Mr. Wasik apparently has an objection to the relevancy of the breakdown, on 31. JUDGE SMITH: Mark it 31 for identification. ( Document marked Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 31 for identification.) MR, WASIK: Does the Court wish to hear SANOERS GALE @ RUSSELL -15Sa- (Sa) WR, WASIK: It is the defendant's position, year Honor, thet happens efter the hearing is not relevant ae to the type of hearing that is given to the claimants at the edministrative level. This is the crux of the plaiatifty’ complaint, the type of hearing that they ere given. They claim that it is not * due process" type of heering as required by Goldberg ve Melly, so the delay efter that hearing the defendants submitted is not relevent to the type of hearing that is given. The eppesl, when it is taken, gees to an unemployeent compensation commissioner who is s menber of the Unemployment Commission, which is « separate entity, apert from the Unemployment Depertaent, which is the -- which the Commissioner is administrator of. For thoee reasons we feel it is not relevent to the iseue at hand. JUDGE SMITH: It may be marked es & full exhibit. The objection is overruled. MR. WASIK: Will the Court note én exception? JUDGE GUITH: Exceptions are not necessary in our practice. (Plaintiff's mxhibit 31 received in evidence.) JUDGE SIAMEMFELD: Your effidevits, are you stipulating that the witnesses would say whet their affidavits say of that the facts in the sffidavit are true? SAMOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CERTIFIEO STENOTY OE REPORTERS CERTIFIEO STENOTY OE CEP OR TEMS NEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT 25 CHRO STREET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT rs MAIN SIMEET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT 24 25 ~156a- |6a) MR, CREAME: The witnesses would say what is in the effidavite, your Honor. MR, WASIK: The defendants et price hearings submitted an affidavit of the Executive Director of the Depertmert, Carl Eisenman; also an affidavit of one Petra Colaso, an interpreter, one who acted as interpreter in the Bridgeport office, I believe these were marked as exhibits, 1 don't have the numbers, at the prior hearing, end I would offer them now. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: How many? MR, WASIK: Just two. One affidavit for each. JUDGE SMITH: Let them be marked as Defendants* Exhibits A and B. We have not yet got those other affidavits marked. Start with 32. How many are there? "“R, CREAME;: There were several affidavits for } | | some of the plaintiffs. I suppose they could be 32 A and B, on -157a- | 7a) managers of the Bridgeport Unemployment Office and one of the Chairmen of the Unemployment Compensation Commission reflecting Gepertment policy, so thet they ere in as exhibits, and there is a stipulation that they reflect the defendants’ State policy. JUDGE GMITH: It may be filed. MR, CREANE;: This suit seeks to establish for unemployment compensation recipients who have survived the initial eligibility determination by the defendant of the | protection of the Goldberg vs. Melly due process prior hearing. It is our. policy -- it is our position that the | due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and the language of Section 2 of the Social Security Act require this hearing. We are going to asking for time to file briefs after the hearing today, your Honor, and I won't take up such more time with legal ergument at this point unless the Court nds 8 hes same questions. We apperently would need at lease three a e " weeks on briefs. Mr. wasik had meade plans to be out of the JUDGE BIAMENFELD: Do we heave to be held up 20 tate dur the latter of the month end we would have while they are marked? s ing part 21 no objection if theCourt would grant us until June 5 to file MR, CREAME: wo, your Honor. If the Court 22 briefs on this case. There is & great desl of data reports, would wish we could do that after the hearing. 23 depositions and other forms of material that the parties are JUDGE SMITH: Proceed with your argument. | 24 going to have to sift through and present in the best form for MR, CREAME: One final stipulation, thet the 25 the Court. Gepositions which ere already marked as exhibits, one of the saneans. 6a. SANDERS. GALE @ RUSSELL ceearr ao stan otree eeroettes | caatirto ware ~~~ el 190 MAIN STREET . 90S Crmmens STREET 790 nanene SOMERT 208 CRMAOH STREET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT MEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT | HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN CONWECTICUT -158a- -159a- | Ga) JUDGE SMITH: Do you wish to exchenge briefs on the fifth of June or briefs first for the plaintiffs and : | j | then an answering brief for the defendants? | — - — ENGR cor gecabiotey: Chen 4 MR, CREAME: We would prefer simulenecus briefs. ! IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT CouRT Tf anything, Mr. Wasik is more aware of what our arguments are | POR THE DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT than we are of whet he may be raising in the wey of defenses. — 25 i ot fe *2# e228 e888 eee e © 6 Dee + 4 oe x S.C CURE Rese Wy Cue 6. LARRY STEINBERC and CECTL PASKFWITZ, et al., MR, CREAME: I must say @ word sbout the | and DELIA TRIANA and JUAN MIRANDA, : exhibits before the Court. 1 realise it is very ewkwatd, but — } Intervenors, ; what we have had to do is submit individuel policy sence | ve. ae wae and policy letters as exhibits because Connecticut is one of : : -— 2p FURAN, Commtectoner of 1 aah : the few states that does not heve @ unified senual of ! | Compensation Act, State of Connecticut. ' regulations, such 6s wes before the Court in Indiana, ew | [ereenteseshostetcscesecs x York, California, where the defendant, or the state's regulations were e11 set out. , Hartford, Connecticut They are rather scattered through « number of volumes here in Connecticut so thet accounts for same of the | ewhkwerd masse of material before the Court on the exhibits. | We have just one witness thet we are going to be calling. Mr. Hatcher. SAMOERS GALE & RUSSELL CERTIFIEO STENOTY OE REPORTERS Before: May 14, 1973 Hon. J. JOSEPH SMITH, U.8.C.7. + M. JOSEPH BLUMENFELD, U.S.D.J. + JON 0. NEWMAN, U.S.D.J. SANDERS, GALE @ RUSSELL CHHTIFIED CTE NOT YT OE SEP On TERS TSO MAIN STREET 180 AAAI STMT eos CARO sms ss Nb oe : HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT NEw HALE arc. HARTFORD CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT -160a- Appearances: Por the Plaintiffs: 412 East Main Street Bridgeport, Connecticut Por the Defendants: ROBERT K. KILLIAN Attorney General By: | 50 aan Steer HARTFORO CONNECTICUT DOWALD E. WASIK, Esq., of Counsel Assistant Attorney General Employment Security Div. AG-7 Labor Department Hartford, Connecticut SAMOERS GALE & RUSSELL CERT FEO CTENOT TOE CHP OR TERS WEW HAVES mt rn.” (2) ~~ Met) tTIcuT “°° | ! 2) 23 SS = a = -l6la- Hatcher - direct | THREEODORE ¥. FATCHER, called as « witness, having first been duly sworn by the Clerk of the Court, was examined and testified as follows: THE CLERK: State your name and address, please? THE WITWESS: Theodore W. Hatcher. I live at 38 Bronson Street, Waterbury, Connecticut. DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CREANE: Q Mr. Hatcher, you ase presently working for the Connecticut Department of Labor, are you not? Yes. In what capacity? I'm the Onemployment Compensation Director. In that capacity you have become familiar with the > re? * Connecticut lews and regulations on unemployment compense«tion and on the relevant provision of the Social Security Act as they affect your program here in Connecticut? a Yes. a When «a claimant for unemployment compensation applies in Connecticut, he is not required to demonstrate the financial need at the time he applies, is he? a Bo, he is not. Qo However, you do allow a dépendency allowance, do you not, for eligible claimants, $5.00 per dependent? SANDERS GALE 6 RUSSELL Ceel © £0 STENOTY OE PEP OR TERS SO MAW SIOEET —————_— cw HARTFORD COnmECTicul NEW HAVEN CONNECT © -162a- j Batcher- direct - {a} A Yes. | Qa Does that in any sense reflect « recogition of need | ! of claimants with larger families? A No, because people, or « claimant, regardless of his financial status, can qualify for benefits in dependency allowances without establishing need as long as he is the whole or main support of that dependent, he may qualify for benefits. Q I understand that, the dependency is given to everyone, but doesn't it reflect a recognition that larger j SO Menon OlRET |} HARTFORD CONNECTICUT families with # man or woman out of work are perhaps in sore need of unemployment benefits or large amounts of benefits? a Yes, it does. Q Ten't it true thet when the Sociel Security Act was enacted in 1935, including the provision on the unemployment compensation section that the -- that that expressed a congressional recognition of financial need for workers who have been laid off from work through no fault of their own and are seeking work? “a Do I have to answer yes or no? JUDGE BLUMENFELD: Do the best you can. JUDGE SMITH: Try. A Unemployment compensation was initiated to provide the unemployed individual with a subsistance wage during the period that they were unemployed. In order aleo not to delve into their SANDERS GALE @ RUSSELL COT © EO STENOT + OE MEO OR TERS om Chee fet NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT 25 -163a- HI ' ' Hatcher - direct (s) , Savings or other benefits that they may heve set up on their | ie) So as to provide « short-run financial subsistance for workers who have lost their jobs? That's right. JUDGE SMITH: t| i; . Does the witness have any particuler li Competence to say what was in the mind of the Congress ( in 1935? ' MR. CREANE: I don't think he would be qualified es an expert, but he does administer the Act and he i has to be familiar with -- he has to operate the egency in accordance with the Act, and I think he probably is \ aware of what reports and so on that came out at the time that the Social Security Act was enacted. i JUDGE SMITH: Wouldn't the reports be « little more sounder foundation for us? MR. CREAWE: Yes, they would be better evidence, i your Honor. M 0 Mr. Hatcher, if you can anewer this, pleese do. If you (can't, you don't have to. Ien't it true thet there are substantial ' number of unemployment compensation recipients in Connecticut | me depend solely on eneuploynent cumpensetion bensfits te i provide for the needs for themselves and their families? MR. WASTK: Objection. If don't think the witness i SANOERS GALE & RUSSELL CEet © £0 8TENOTY OE CEP OR TERS ' 2 CHC Sratr! rae aanane Gomag? NEO HAVEN CONNECTICUT MaRTFORO CONNECTICUT -l64a- Hatcher - direct {6} is qualified to answer that. He doesn’> r- ? entitlement -- A Yes. Q Now, what types of issues can get or dequali fications | ean result in a finding of -- that « claimant is not going to | get their benefits during a particular two-week period? | A = An individual -- there are quite « number. An individual may be ineligible for reasons of his separation from employment. I'm not sure we are -- we are not really talking He may also be ineligible -- " 0. | gbout the same things. I'm not talking about the initial | @etermination of eligibility. When the worker comes in and you l resolve the questions whether he left work voluntarily or he was dismissed about misconduct, we are not talking about those initial determinations. Are you familiar with the form that your department submits, Wo. BES-2077 A Yes. MR. CREANE: ‘That's one of the plaintiff's SANDERS GALE 6 RUSSELL Cee’ © £O STENOTY OE OEP ORT ERS 70 MAIN SIQEET > (her et HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT wE@ HAVEN CONNEC? -167a- Hatcher - direct [9] exhibits. Perhaps, if you don't have any objection, I can refresh his recollection what we are talking about. JUDGE BLUMENPELD: Is that termination of benefits? WR. CREANE: Yes, your Honor. Wot on the initial eligibility, but on a termination after a claimant has been determined eligible and begun receiving benefits. There are really two -- it's set out in the stipulation. JUDGE SMITH: Aren't their cases where information comes to the Department after a finding of entitlement after benefits start which casts some doubt as to whether the entitlement was properly found, wouldn't that be included in these? MR. CREANE: Wo, that's not the type of issue we are talking about. If you have the exhibits in front of you, if you would look at No. 494 BS-207, I think it breaks it down so that -- JUDGE BLUMENPELD: Ie there a title on that exhibit that you have in your hand? MR. CREANE: Won-monetary Determination Activities. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: In short, that means what? THE WITWESS: These are the issues that arise that may result in claimant ineligibility once adjudicated. ) | ! 908 CHART: S Tate WEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT | SANOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CEST FED STENOTY OE REPORTERS PSO MAIN STREET HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT 0 24 ce) -168a- Hatcher - direct fio} BY MR. CREANE: Q In part, on the first part here, we are talking about determinations involving separation issues? a Yes. Q Those are the issues, are they not, that come up when a worker first goes to the unemployment office, there has to be a determination whether he left work voluntarily, whether he was dismissed for misconduct or whether he was attending school full-time and, therefore, not eligible for benefits? a All of which can also occur on a continuing claim basis and individual may go to work for a short time ané those may also be issues on a continuing clain. a Dismissal for misconduct? A Yes. Qa Voluntarily leaving a job? a That's right. An individual may go to work for an extremely short period of time, one or two days, and still be filing partial benefits in a continuing claim series, and those issues may also arise at that time. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: You mean with respect to his second job? THE WITWESS: Yes, to a second job. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: You don't mean reopening the determination on the first? SANDERS. GALE 6 RUSSELL caerere stint fe @eeonraes 7.0 AN 8tET 0s CHA (Nett! HakTFORO CONNECTICUT NEW RAVEN CONNECT” T a a Ls a -169a- Hatcher - direct fia] THE WITNESS: Wo, it would not affect -- JUDGE BLUMENFELD: The finding of eligiblity? THE WITNESS: That's right. The iesue that I am interested in involve determinations ' involving other issues. Yes, the work refusal, failure to apply -- Available for work? Available and eble, yes. This is the report for December, 1972, and apparently the bulk of the denials on continuing claim is for -- under the iesue of able, available and actively seeking work? A 0 Yes. 1339 out of 1900 denials? Yes. for example, under pregnancy, the question of whether the claimant should be disqualified as being too pregnant? ee. e€4 FF & nso MAIN STREET HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT Yes. 267 on diequalifying or deductibility income? Yes. 213 on refusal, suitable work? Correct. And 38 miscellaneous? That's right. JUDGE SMITH: Which one is that? that's not the SANDERS, GALE @ RUSSELL CERT FEO STENOTY OE AEP OR TERS 9s CHC hs STetET NEW HAVEN CONNECTICKUT -170a- Hatcher - direct {22} first page, Exhibit 4. MR. CREANE: It has « report period, your Honor. This one is 12/31/72. They should be arranged chronologically. What's the top one in your exhibit? JUDGE SMITH: This is 2/13/73. MR. CREANE: It would be back about two reports earlier than that. Any report would give you an idea of the distinction between the initial eligibility questions and the continuing eligibility questions. Q Now, on the questicn of determination after « seated interview, isn't it normal procedure that the claimant will come in, get into the claims line, submit two signed cards, 0C-46 and UC-46, in which he lists the efforts he has made to obtain work during the two-week ~eriod, and signed « cera stating that he has not had other employment, that he has not been collecting any other unemployment benefite and present those in the claims line? A Yes. a Now, if a question arises in the mind of the person giving out the checks as to possible ineligibility, he would be ordinarily referred to the seated interview line? A That's correct. Q When he gets to the head of the seated interview line, he will sit down with what the Department calle a fact finder, SANDERS GALE 6&6 RUSSELL cer Ff sri re | eon rnhes so MAIN Slanrt AS repayment WARTFORO. CONNECTICUT NE@ RAVEN CONNECT 19 23 24 \' _ often involves the application of a very broad, in fact, vague [HARTFORD CONNECTICUT -17la- Hatcher - direct 23] isn't that correct? a That's correct. Q Por what they term a seated interview? A Yes. a Now, at the seated interview there is a determination made as to whether the claimant is eligible for that two-week period or whether he should be disqualified for that two-week period, isn't that correct? A Yes. Q Ten't it true that at the seated interviews, which is really the heart of this case, that the fact finder in reaching a decision under some circumstances will rely on third party information, which is given either over the phone or in writing, and not directly there at the seated interview? A In some cases, yes. a Ten't it true that at the seated interviews there are contested factual issues which the claims examiner must sort out and make a decision on? a That he aust resolve, yes. a Ien't it true that at the seated interviews it very standard, such as available for work, reasonable efforts to make work, job that was suitable as defined in the statute, whether the job offered involved a place that was « reasonable distance SANOERE GALE & RUSSELL cae” © £0 4° O6G*. 8 e8P OR TERS FO Cha SrenET rome OfeeeT NEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT | ? -172a- Hatcher - direct flay from his home, ien't the fact finder very often asked to apply those particular standards to the facts of the case before him? a I must qualify part of my anewer because you refer to vague statute. a a I call it broad. I will withdrawn the term "vague". Broad. They have to apply broad standards, yes. Ien't it true -- JUDGE NEWMAN: Is the interview you are talking about with respect to the next two weeks or the last two weeks, or is it in the middle, when does it happen with reference -- THE WITWESS: The individual, when he files a claim with benefits, a continuing claim for benefits, files for a period thet ends the Saturday before the week in which he is appearing. He is at that time certifying to his availability and eligibility for that two-week period immediately preceding, and these are the claims that are at issue at this interview. JUDGE BLUMENPELD: Immediately preceding? THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: You mean that have already passed? THE WITNESS: That have already passed. SANDERS GALE @ RUSSELL cer “'' es HARTFORO CONNECTICUT -173a- Hatcher - direct fis} JUDGE SMITH: He doesn't get paid until after the two-week period until after he has had the interview following the end of the two-week period? THE WITNESS: Yes. He is certifying to his eligibility for the benefit period or the claim period which ends the Saturday before he comes in. At that time he is certifying that he has been available for work and he has applied for work. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: During the past two weeks? THE WITNESS: During the past two weeks. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: He goes on Monday and says, “I want my benefits for the past two weeks"? THE WITNESS: JUDGE WEWMAN: If they don't question it, he gets paid that day? THE WITWESS: That's right. JUDGE WEWMAN: If they question it, then he has this -- what's been called « seated interview? THE WITNESS: Which would occur that same day, and if otherwise eligible, would be paid, but if denied, no. JUDGE NEWMAN: Would the issue get resolved at least at that level that day? THE WITWESS: Generally speaking. There are cases SANOERS GALE @ RUSSELL Cee’ ©:£O OT EH OTs OE AEP OR TERS 908 ChULRC + Tent NEW HAVEN CONNECT CUT -174a- Hatcher - direct pe in which there is «a limited delay, but generally, there is a finding on the day in question. MR. CREANE: Your Honor, the stipulation states that in some circumstances « fact finding is made, and! then the decision is mailed out under the signature of the office manager in « form letter at « later point. BY MR. CREANE: a Ordinarily, you said whatever develops at the seated interview is for the past two-week period? A Yes. 0 Ien't it true that there is et least one circumstance where a decision is made on the day of the claimant is scheduled to come in that will affect his benefits for the coming two weeks and not for the past two weeks? I'm referring to what is our Exhibit 29, evidences of temporary unavailability. Are you familiar with thet? a There is no determination made at that time, at the time of the interview. The individual is interviewed on the isswe that is occurring on that day. Q Ien't it stated here that if the fect finder determiner that the man has been drinking, that determination will be made that he was not available for that week? A Por that particular week, not the weeks coming. This SAWOERS GALE & MUSSELL 2 ee eee ee ee ee ee | wane leer “HARTEORD COn~necTicut uL@ raven cated 2) 23 -17Sa- Hatcher - direct hy ie the week in which -- Q Tt says since the observed condition does not relate te the work for which the claimant is filing his claim, the fact finding report should be held until the claimant files his claim for the week in which he appeared in the local office because there is some time lag. the preceding two-week period? a Yes. You come in on a Tuesday from a That Tuesday of that week you already knew the first week of your next two-week period? a That's correct. a So that if the fact finder observes a man and feels that he is under the influence of alcohol, he will disqualify him, make a note, and diequalify him for that week the next time , he comes in? A Yes, but he is being interviewed at that time on the issue. Of whether he is under the influence of alcohol? That's right. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: What does he do? Does he say, “Forget it, you behaved yourself the last two weeks, but for this week you are in trouble because you are drunk"? THE WITWESS: The issue of availability -- an SANOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CEST © EO STENOT+ OE BHP OR TERS ran eT NE® HAVEN CONNECT (UT 780 MAIN STREET HARTFORD CONNECTICUT 3 -176a- Ratcher - direct oe individual must be found to be evailable for work throughout the week for which he is receiving benefits, and since this issue of inebriation occurs during the current week and not for any week for which he is being paid benefits today, then it does not become an issue unti) the individual ectually files « claim for the current week. JUDGE NEWMAN: When he files thet claim is some notation made as to what the facts were when he came in before? THE WITWESS: Yes. It is necessary to interview him at the time he is in in order to obtain the facts on this particuler week. JUDGE NEWMAN: Are you saying thet as to those issues that are observable when a claimant comes in the seated interview serves two purposes? THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE NEWMAN: It determines past eligibility, eligibility for the preceding two weeks? THE WITWESS: That's correct. JUDGE NEWMAN: And it serves as « factual basis for the determination that will later be made as to the two-week period in which the interview is held? THE WITWESS: I can't say the two-week period, but reer os 1 wie -evFN CONNETT 25 ———E———"— = S- 70 Maer STEET waRTFORO CONNECTICUT -177a- Hatcher - direct ae the current week. The past two weeks and the current week because we cannot project into the future. JUDGE BSLUMENFELD: Do you carry it beck into the pest? He is in there on the 15th, let's say the 17th of the month, « Monday, and he is looking for his benefits for the two first weeks of the month, and he ie in an intoxiciated condition, and now you say thet you take that into account in determining whether he was going to get benefits for the first two weeks? THE WITWESS: No. JUDGE SLUMENFELD: Thet's out? THE WITWESS: Yes. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: He is in to collect for those? THE WITWESS: That's correct. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: Sut while he is in there, you notice he is in no shape to go to work that day? THE WITWESS: That's right, that week. JUDGE BLUMENPELD: So you cross that week off, he is not entitled to benefits for that week, is that right? THE WITWESS: If it's found that he is in « condition such that he cannot be referred to « job potential thet day. ° "tno" +e efron raes cw vr foere . -_ so salen wEW HeVEN CoNnEeTr cur -178a- Hatcher - direct {20} for that week? THE WITWESS: Yee. BY MR. CREANE: Q Do you have your fact finders -- do they receive any _ Particular training in recognizing the difference hetween a | man who is drunk or « man who might be having « mild seisure | Of been taking pille under doctor's orders or taking sedatives who would give the appearance -- a This is the purpose of the interview. If the individual has @ medical problem and he presents the medical problem ané we are able to substantiate it with « medical statement, then the man has no problem in that area. Q I think you stated that very often the fact finder will have to make a judgment as to whether they think the person is lying or telling the truth, isn't that right? . Well, there are times where we must resolve the facts we are unable to confirn. Q Aren't they told thet in the comments section of the fact finding report when they write up the fact finding report that they ere specifically told to put in that section any nonfactual factors that went into their decision, even though they are not part of the factual record, such as, “I didn't believe the person was telling the truth, or he twitched when I asked him the question,” aren't they told to out those kind » aN habe! * HaRTFORD CONNECTICUT wha -AvEN CONKE -179a- Hatcher - direct 21) of comments in? a The type of comment that they have to put in there is ‘ a justification for having arrived at their decision. ‘There is “am occasional period where an individual has established a record * uch that there is a question on the validity of hie statement and this may be evaluated along with the other factors in arriving * at « decision. ’ 0 So the fact finding report would have the factuel ‘0 basis for the decision, and then a comment section for any ' nonfectual matters that went into arriving at his decision? It could 12 A It may not have any nonfactual information. "3 have some nonfactuel. if Qa If a claimant is required to register with the \S | employment service -- is he not, a8 @ condition of receiving 6 benefite? 7 A Yes. se 0 And on occasion « job will be -- he will be given a job 19 geferral to go for an interview? 20. a Yes. 21 Qo Now, the employer.is_given a card thet he is to check 2 off if the person shows up to inform the unemployment department 23 of whether or not the person showed up, whether the job was ue | offered, whether it was refused, whether it was not offered | os, because a claimant didn’t appear to be interested in the job? | | cannes, onus © mesee.s | ° . i Cee’ © £0 tT EwOt ee aaron TEns coum am j "ao cameo CINE Ee wAVEN, CONNECTICUT | | HARTFORD CONNECTICUT ~ eOhTEQOPD COeECTiCur -180a- Hatcher - direct (22) A Yes. The individual hand carries the card and presents it to the employer and the employer makes his comments on the part of the card that's designated for that purpose. 0 Doesn't he generally mail it back? A He mails it back, yes. 0 Now, suppose a card comes back and it's checked out and, “I have jobs, but I didn't offer one to this claimaint because I didn't think he was interested or he told me he had a problem with transportation,” and the man -- and that man comes in for -- to pick up his checks and thev refer him over for 4 seated interview, andisn't it true that the fact finding examiner can give any amount of weight he wants to that unverified report from the third party in making his decision at the seated interview, he might try to call the employer to verify it, isn't that correct? a Yes, he may. Q But he may not we able to get hold of the employer? is Well, any -- there is a policy throughout the Department that on the fact that cannot be established, the claimant is given the benefit of the doubt, so I don't think that the program is weighted towards more -- more heavily towards the employer statement, if we cannot verify it. 0 Is that in writing anywhere, or is that sort of an unwritten policy? SANDERS GA_E 6 RUSSELL ‘- to 8° ae oe Pe wf tl ont nee ate ene NE@ RAVEN “TONNE? 1 Cheam ler Hatcher - direct (23) LG It's an unwritten policy. 0 But the fact finder is free to rely on third party information in arriving at his decision? A If the third party is a party at interest, yes. a Suppose there is a report that a claimant was working -- JUDGE NEWMAN: What does that mean? You mean if the issue is the circumstances under which he left employment so that it affected that employer's -- THE WITNESS: No, I'm referring to the employer where an individual was referred and the employer either offered a job and the individual refused, or the employer did not offer a job for particular reasons and the employer had a potential job for the individual. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: That is, a prospective employer? THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE NEWMAN: That's what you mean by a party in interest? THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE NEWMAN: Inthat event, you say they don't rely on the written statement? THE WITNESS: Not alone, not alone. It has -- the individual has to be interviewed on the job for refusal. He cannot be denic4 on the job if he SANOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL CGe* £ EO STEKO + PE BEC SR ERE 190 MANN STREET Os CnC y REET nanveone COnNwECTICUT wEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT a Ee all -182a- Hatcher - direct (24) refuses. JUDGE BLUMENFELD: Just on the basis of the card from the proposed employer? THE WITNESS: That's correct, he cannot, he must be interviewed. JUDGE NEWMAN: Supposing he disputes what's on the card? THE WITNESS: Then we attempt to reconcile the differences between the statements. Where there is @ question of doubt, unconfirmed doubt, we weigh it in favor of the claimant. We cannot deprive him on the basis of a figment of our imagination. MR. NEWMAN: Supposing it's a factual dispute, the cards says the employer reports he offered him a job, and the claimant says, "I have no transportation for the time period that he offered me that particular shift"? THE WITNESS: And if the individual confirms this -- JUDGE NEWMAN: Which individual? THE WITNESS: The claimant. JUDGE NEWMAN: That's what the claimant says, he says, “I have no transportation"? THE WITNESS: So there is no conflict, then, in that particular case. The employer offered him a job, SANDERS GALE @ RUSSELL ite 7 van ee @ + Omreces | OnwnEC Ticut NER HAVEN CONFET -183a- Hatcher - direct (25) he said he couldn't accept it because he had no transportation, so there is actually no conflict, he has failed to accept the job. Now, we must determine whether such reason for refusal was with or without -- whether he refused suitable work without sufficient job -- without sufficient cause, I'm sorry. ' JUDGE BLUMFNPFELD: What about it, do you then look into the question of whether he had transportation? THF WITNFSS: Yes, we do look into that. This is all part of the report. JUDGE NEWMAN: Supposing it's an absolute conflict, the claimant says, "He never offered me « job"? THE WITNESS: This type of case you have to dig a little more deeply to find out where the weight of evidence lies in order to make a determination. If the employer -- you could contact the employer and sav that thio individual says he appeared there, you didn't offer him a job. The emmlover -- you take additional t. timony from the testimony -- you take additional testimony from the employer, and if there is still a conflict and we are unable to reconcile it, we would have to reconcile it in favor of the claimant, but ' SANDERS. GALE & RUSSELL | Cem © EO TEND Oe OP OR TERS ; | 750 MAIN STREET POs Cha CH STOEET | want roRo CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT | -184a- Hatcher - direct bs generally speaking, it doesn't reach the point where the individual or the employer does not eventually agree that something has happened there at that time. JUDGE SLUMENFELD: There can be misunderstanding? THE WITNESS: Yes. JUDGE SLUMENPELD: But rarely a case of direct conflict so that you have to make a judgment of credibility? THE WITNESS: That's right. BY MR. CREANE: Q Aren't there often direct conflicts of version of facts at the hearings before the unemployment commissioners, where the claimant says one thing and Department says: no, it's different? A Yes, there are. a Aren't those merely continuations of the conflicts that arose at the unemployment office and were resolved against the claimant? A Not always. Sometimes the original statement of the Claimant is substantially different from those that appear at the hearings. Q If the claimant in the situation involving a job referral, if the employer is not there, the fact finder is still empowered to go ahead and make a determination, if he is unable SANDERS GALE @ RUSSELL cre” © © O 8° ER Of « OE BH POF hes yo MAIN \ebET Os CHAM: CTRL MARTE ORL Onwec Ticut NE® RAVEN CONNECTICUT -185a- ! Hatcher - direct (27) 2 to contact a third party fer additional confirmation, isn't he? 3 A Not without exhausting all avenues open for obtaining 4 the information from the employer. 5 a The employer sends back a card and says, “I offered 6 nim a job and he refused,” and the claimant says, “He never ) offered it to me,” the fact finder tries to get hold of the 8 employer and is unable to do so, the fact finder is then -- he has 9 to make a decision? 10 He has to make a decision. If the employer is " unreachable, he has to make a decision on the basis of the facts 12) that's available to him. 3. Q Suppose he thinks the claimant is lying, he is free 4, to take that into consideration in arriving at his decision? is A He could take that into consideration. % | a This same type of problem would come up on the question 1 . of availability and reasonable effort to find work, wouldn't it, 1@ where an employer contacted the Department and said, “Look, this 19 | guy has been collecting benefits and I had a job waiting for 20 | him two months after he left and he never came back to apply 21 for it," wouldn't that involve again the question of third party 22 information of why didn't the man go back and apply, what were 23, the circumstances when he left, was there too much bitterness between them, is that an excusable reasonfor not going back? Doesn't that again involve third party information coming to the SANOERS GALE @ RUSSELL Cin’ © €C STEN OTs OE HOP OnTEasS TSO MAIN SIQEET 0s CheaCne etET } HARTFORD CONNECTICUT WE@ HAVEN CONNECTICUT Hatcher - direct (28) A Yes. Q And decisions being made partly on the basis of third party information of persons who were not present at the seated | interview? NR Yes. Q Isn't it true that if the Department receives a report that a claimant has been out working, moonlighting, and hasn't reported that income on his UC-46 form, that he has disqualifying income, isn't it true that the Department, if they consider it a reliable source of information, can use that third party information as a basis for disqualifying the claimant at a seated interview? A Not as a basis for disqualifying until it was established that he actually had the income. The employer involved, or if there is an employer involved, would have to establish that the individual actually had earnings before there would be a Genial of benefits. a Are there any other major reasons for disqualifying a claimant on the basis of a seated interview that would not involve the various degrees, factual issues or relying on third party information, not in every single instance, but are there any major categories that you can think of that where you can say that never involves third party information categorically? SANOERS GALE @ RUSSELL ef ere et er carteRs SAAN OTGEET i WARTFORD. CONNECTICUT NEW RAVEN CONNnT 24 25 -187a- Hatcher - direct p29] A No, except where -~ I'm sorry -- except where the individual is unable to work and so states that he is unable | to work. a A major reason for disqualifying claimants is on the basis they have not used reasonable effort to seek work, isn't that correct? A Yes. a That's one of the big reasons. by the fact finder at the seated interview, doesn't he have to Ien't that determination take into account many, many factors in arriving at an individual Gecision for that claimant? A Yes, he does. Q Could you give a few of the factors they would have to make in order to make that kind of decision? A Well, the condition of the labor market, the individual's job classification, the claimant's exposure up to this time to the job market, if the individual has already exhausted the job potentials in the area, all of this has to be taken into consideration. ie} Wouldn't such factors as whether he had a car, whether he had full access to a car, how far the jobs that he could do were from his home? 7 That's right. Q So there is really almost an infinite number of SANDERS GALE & RUSSELL CERT FEO STENOT + OE REPORTERS 790 MAIN SITET HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT ] | ' | ™ Cheech Wert NEW HAVEN. CONNECTICUT | Hatcher - direct pa factors that could be relevant to the question of whether « particular claimant had mace e reasonable effort to seek work, | peasonable for him? A Yes. Q Isn't it true that the Department's regulations recognize that, that they recognize it's basically « judgment in each individual case as to whether the person Hatcher - direct by there is many jobs available? Do you know if the fact finders are supplied with that information on what the condition of the labor market is? A The fact finders are aware of the condition of their labor market area through constant exposure to their varticular area, they know when employment in their area is heavy, they have available to them from the employment service records the made a reasonable effort? 9 hiring in certain job classifications. A =‘ Yes. 10 0 Are you sure that’s actually followed through, or is ie] Isn't that a preeminently factual issue, reasonable " i that just what you wish policy was? effort, in any particular situation or whether a particular 2 f AS Wo, I'm sure. claimant has made a reasonable effort? 3 , QO It's carried through? A There is a judgment that must be made. 6 | A Yes. Q Do you have @ working definition of what the Is | 2 1 ask that because -- statutory requirement of reasonable effort means that you 16 JUDGE BLUMENFELD: Is this a hostile witness for could supply us with? 7 you? KR A statutory? 8 MR. CREAWE: I'm sorry. ¢ There is a statutory -- that the claimant make reasonable "9 JUDGE BLUMENPELD: Is Mr. Hatcher her. a hostile effort in order to get benefits. 20 witness, do you regard him as a hostile witness? A That the individysl do what can be reasonably expected 21 { MR. CREANE: Wot at this point, your Honor. of him to try to find work if he is truly attached to the labor 2 JUDGE BLUMENFELD: This testimony, does this market ready and available for work. 23 illustrate what the regulations provide, or is this a) You mentioned one of the factors would be the labor a | something we wouldn't have known otherwise? Do we have market itself. What is the degree of unemployment, whether 25 to have this testimony as to every little step that's | Se. oes cenvennwonnoren neronrent aed See re Mane SOT Cue: Gay HARTFORD, CONNECTICUT MEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT =aR7* ORD CONNECTICUT WEW HAVEN CONNECTICUT 25 Hatcher - direct (32) taken there and how it's done? MR. CREANE: Yes. We have no agreement, your ! Honor, on -- the State's position has been up to this point the claimant supplies the information and the only reason he is disqualified is because of information that he supplies. You mean the overall testimony of Mr. Hatcher? JUDGE BLUMENFELD: Yes. Couldn't this have been f taken on deposition and reduced to writing so that \ we could have had it? i MR. CREANE: deposition. I_suppose it could have been doneby Up to now he is not « hostile | witness and we don't have to be too critical of matters t of credibility, is that right? | MR. CREANE: Yer, that's right. Q The claimants supply enother form, UC-45, where they ' Ldet the places that they have sought work? a Yes. Q Is there any statewide policy on the number of places g thet aust be iseted en thet Seon? A There is no policy because you have to establish -- r as far as eligibility is concerned, we do have a policy for SAMOERS GALE 6 RUSSELL : CERT FEO STENOTY OE CEP OR TERS il P30 mwas siege? 9s CERO SHES || HARTFORD. CONNECTICUT NEW HAVEN, CONNECTICUT | 25 -19la- Hatcher - direct iB) submitting or screening in order to establish which ones , Should be interviewed in order to determine whether or not such effort was reasonable, and that is three places «a week. If the individual applies at fewer than three, then, they must be interviewed to determine the quality of the effort that they have made. i) Has that ever been reduced to writing, that there must be at least three, and if there are two, you have to have « seated interview, is that a policy memorandum? A It's not written that the individuals who are involved are aware of that. 0 You tell them by phone? A Well, through our training sessions, through our exposures to the ad{fudication section, through our management meetings thet the managers are responsible for the operation of their office. oO Do you know if -- JUDGE NEWMAN: At least three or less than three, which is the critical point? THE WITWESS: If they have three, they are screened through, except for a [Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.] --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385003_0127%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.