Appendix — Fusari v. Steinberg

Supreme Court brief1975

Ask Donna

What actually matters in this document.

Text

sirines LIBRARY 3 [ Supreme Court, U.

waME COURT, U, 5 FLEE D

APPENDIX MAY 4 18%

MICHAE

mee HALL POCAK-IR., 0

IN THE

Supreme Court of the Gnited States

OCTOBER TERM, 1973

No. 73-848

Jack A. Fusari1, Commissioner of Labor of the State of Con-

necticut, Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act.

Appellant,

-x ¥.z

a erent

LARRY STEINBERG, et al

Appellees.

ON APPEAL FROM THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT

COURT FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

Appeal Docketed November 13, 1973

Jurisdiction Noted February 19, 1974

10.

ee ee 12D RHE SRR EN LPS E RO. AB AP BSE NTA el IS

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Page

Relevant Docket Entries ......0....ccccccccceccececceeccecccee. la

Exhibit B of Original Complaint ................0cccc0000.0-. 7a

Amended Complaint.......00.00..0cccccccccceececceeccecceeceeeees 12a

Answer to Amended Complaint ......... ue Seadasseopdencasaps 32a

Stipulation to Facts ......ccccccccececcescsceseeseeeceececceese. 35a

Stipulation as to Plaintiffs’ Exhibits........................ 4Sa

Stipulation to Depositions..................... Pbeeonbensiart 46a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 9 (Deposition of Eleanor

BS UMNAUD | acarace cose cen rasa suaatsaeluveselndevidardy oisen2auesnosen. 47a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 14 (Letter dated December

Be BID eros ettonimcecic best ps peersabecieteeuasleviscanteinesisel ances, I13a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 15 (Letter dated February

27. EIDG) sicassertviesersness tue Sbaresaveeiatsigft-ninssfeateeucvasaeees 115a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 16 (Letter dated October

Be TIO) cciacvauesanresshucescuisedcaediceailosiesiectacis dance. 117a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 17 (Letter dated August

BOBS TINS) assets estes seesceaveseuserssareiseesoaes isos 119a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 27 (UC Form 45 and

Memorandum dated June 30, 1972)........................ I2la

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28b (Letter dated May

BNO eheigciaasa pate aceasta oat eoisectonicreusat ate e case, 123a

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28c (Letter dated November

ab 3.) Innere oan ei en Ae ere ere ne ne re 125Sa

Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28d (Letter dated April

Lae | J.) eet One ne ene ae ne 127a

4 Od Oe.

4 Page

‘17. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 28e (Letter dated May

: DF FFF cece coc nerapiveareenesnetocevscecsurciseiores matuerdeneeerees 129a

: 18. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 29m (Memorandum dated

{ October 6, 1972).............. stuesruseaacnierooeseucecxeeuaresenaes I3la

19. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 290 ivemorandum dated

INOVEMDEE 10, F912) vseccisscerinn searemcieetesperceaccinresniens 132a

20. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 31 (Time limitations on

3 deciding appeals to the Unemployment Compen-

; sation COMMISSION ..............::ccccesseceeesseeeeeteeeeeeetseeees 133a

| > 21. Plaintiffs’ Exhibit No. 32 (Affidavits and Supple-

¢ mentary Affidavits of Delia Triana and Juan Mi-

; CRIED sessiscininesenncancres oa speueupityceieneunsvapsuatounvorawndentieters 135a

22. Defendant's Exhibit A (Affidavit of Carl D.

‘ SCORN) oes isos nsec ce eens ecneceserenrereencmionsnees 143a

j 23. Defendant’s Exhibit B (Affidavit of Petra Collazo). 145a

: 24. Letter from Attorney General to Three-Judge Dis-

i Tye oO: Se oer ee ern rer 147a

: 25. Proposed Consent, Onder isescsssccessscerizsnesinscencdoesncsexs 149a

26. Affidavit of Theodore W. Hatcher................00.000 150a

/ 27. Transcript of Proceedings of May 14, 1973

: (Proceedings Prior to Testimony of Theodore

j WY, SAMMI) ak cecen eres ccccerstigcgreeeeessie-cimsemepcnartening ISla

28. Transcript of Proceedings of May 14, 1973

(Testimony of Theodore W. Hatcher) ..................... 159a

29. Defendant’s Exhibit C (Unemployment Compen-

; sation Booklet — “Your Rights and Responsibilities

under the Connecticut Unemployment Compensa-

RO EF siciacricdcctse eee esse 228a

30. Memorandum of Decision (noted only) .............0000 254a

LCA CLAS SE NN RBS “4

31.

a2.

34.

APPEAL oasseetststistnteerniitttitivtrtittinen es

- Court's Order re Motion for Suspension of Injunc-

tion Pending APPEAL... eeessssseetsseesseeeeeeeessececn

Court's Order re Motion for Proceeding in forma

PAUPETIS csssessertsnstsneettsseuntettetenittitsicec

aren 50

eG IE Hie. NN GEM Op REM BAYNE ORIN PE:

ER EAE LS POO LO CB CALA AL LORI IE!

-la-

JACK A. FUSARI, Commissioner of Labor of the State of

Connecticut, Administrator, Unemployment Compensa-

tion Act.

Appel‘ant,

LARRY STEINBERG, et al

Appellees.

Relevant Docket. Entries

* * * *

6 12 Complaint filed.

7 Motion to Dismiss filed. \

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

10/10

10/16

10/19

10/20

Lopez and Juan Lopez.

Objection to Motion to Intervene filed by defendant.

* * ‘ -

Hearing on (1) Defendant's Motion to Dismiss; (2) De-

fendant’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 Iniunction; (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 witnzsses 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 ot a Three-Judge District

Court, filed by plaintiffs and intervening plaintiffs.

NIRS TS. RDN OA A Co en te ee

11, 13

11/13

-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 on ‘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. .

* * * * Pd

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.

* * * *

1973

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-+/ 18/73.

Plaintiffs’ Motion to Redetermine the Propriety of a

Class Action, endorsed as follows: “Motion referred

for consideration by the three-judge court.” Newman,

J. M-4, 17/73.

9/17

‘Proposed Consent Order filed by Defendant.

-Sa-

* *x * *

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.

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 e1 seq.) in such

a manner as to deprive members of the plaintiff class :

of unemployment benefits without first according

9/25

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.

***

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 et 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 X

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, 197]. 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 Company

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.

Beeniiecs emia

-8a-

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 examiner, who told him to keep a list of places

where he looked for work.

7. On August 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 Ironworkers 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 [5 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 written decision on that

day the examiner mailed him a decision on November I 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.

15. 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.

2) ae mate ROO AEE OTR Ty

-10a-

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 October 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

4 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 examiner's decision is affirmed.

THADDEUS J. PAWLOWSKI

Commissioner, Second District

The only appeal from this decision is to Superior Court.

Six copies of such appeal 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.

NR Fe BOR Ree

Oe!

AEN GEREN a aes ce ae a OW hee See

-Ila-

MEMORANDUM

The question raised by counsel as to whether due process

of law was denied to the claimant 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 claimaat has not met the benefits eligibility condi-

tions, benefits dre 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.

-12a-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

(Title Omitted in Printing)

AMENDED COMPLAINT

Introduction

Plaintiffs bring this suit to challenge several aspects of

Connecticut’s unemployment compensation procedures. First,

plaintiffs challenge Connecticut’s policy of terminating, with-

holding, or suspending unemployment benefits of persons who

have been determined eligible and subsequently ineligible pur-

suant to an administrative decision without a prior hearing

which meets the due process requirements set forth in Goldberg

v. Kelly, 397 U.S. 254. Plaintiffs maintain that this policy,

authorized by Conn. Gen. Stats. §$31-241 and 31-243 denies

plaintiffs due process of law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth

Amendment of the United States Constitution and further vio-

lates the “payment when due” provision of the Social Security

Act, 42 U.S.C. $503 (a)(1). Second, plaintiffs challenge the “work

effort” provisions of Conn. Gen. Stats. $§31-235(a) and 31-236(1)

and defendant's implementation of said statutes on the ground

that these provisions, as enacted and as applied to plaintiffs

and others similarly situated, are unconstitutionally vague, have

operated to deny plaintiffs unemployment benefits without due

process of law and as enacted and applied conflict with $503(a)(1)

of the Social Security Act.

1. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others si-

milarly situated, bring this suit to redress the deprivation of

rights secured by the Fourteenth Amendment to the United

States Constitution and by the Social Security Act of 1935, as

mended, 42 U.S.C. $501 et seq.

2. Plaintiffs seek a declaratory judgment declaring Conn.

Gen. Stats. §§31-235(2), 31-236(1), 31-241 and 31-243 uncon-

stitutional as violative of the Due Process Clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution and invalid

as inconsistent with the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. §503(a)(1).

Plaintiffs further seek an injunction enjoining defendant from

ARLENE DLO NR lg Tare

-13a-

Suspending, terminating, or withholding the unemployment

benefits of persons who have filed, or will file, valid initiating

claims pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-230, 31-235(1)(3)

and 31-241 without affording said persons a prior hearing which

satisfies the due process requirement set forth in Goldberg y.

Kelly. (Copies of Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-230, 31-235, 31-236(1),

31-241 and 31-243 are attached to this Amended Complaint as

Attachment A). .

3. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by Title 28

U.S.C. §1343.

4. Plaintiffs’ action for injunctive and declaratory relief

is brought pursugnt to Title 42 U.S.C. §1983. 28 U.S.C. §§2201

and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.

5. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23(a) and

23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of

themselves and all persons similarly situated. The members of

this class are so numerous as to make joinder of all of them im-

practical. The class is composed of all present and future un-

employed workers in Connecticut who have filed valid initiating

claims for unemployment compensation benefits Pursuant to

Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-230, 31-235(1)(3) and 31-241 and whose

benefits have been or will be terminated, suspended, or with-

held by defendant pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-241 and

31-243 without affording said persons a Goldberg v. Kelly prior

hearing, excepting those persons who from time to time exhaust

their entitlement to those benefits by virtue of the operation of

Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-236. This class is so numerous that joinder

of all members is impractical: there are questions of law and

fact common to the class; the claims of the representative

parties will fairly and adequately protect the interest of the class

and; the defendant and his agents and employees have acted

and refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class

thereby making appropriate declaratory and injunctive relief

with respect to the class as a whole.

PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Larry Steinberg is a citizen of the United States

and a resident of West Willington, Connecticut.

vanicesiel

i, Bast hae

a Re ee OPT NN ESTE Ta

Chetan: eae a eRe

nO A te

-14a-

7. Plaintiff Cecil Paskewitz is a citizen of the United

States and a resident of Somers, Connecticut.

8. Plaintiff Juan Miranda is a citizen of the United States

and a resident of Bridgeport, Connecticut.

9. Plaintiff Delia Triana is a refugee from Cuba who has

applied for permanent residency in the United States. She re-

sides in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

10. Defendant Jack A. Fusari, sued in his individual

and official capacity, is the Commissioner of Labor for the State

of Connecticut. Under Connecticut Genera} Statutes, §31-1, he

is designated as the individual responsible for administering the

Unemployment Compensation Act of the State of Connecticut.

11. Under the Connecticut Unemployment Compensation

Statute, Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-222 et seq., an initial determina-

tion of eligibility is made after an unemployed claimant files an

initiating claim and a claim examiner determines, pursuant to

Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-241, that the claim is valid.

12. The statutory provisions relating to the initial deter-

mination of eligibility provide, in relevant part, as follows:

Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-230

.... As used in this section an initiating claim shall be

deemed valid if the claimant is unemployed and meets

the requirements of subsections (1) and (3) of section

31-235.

Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-235 — Benefits eligibility conditions;

qualifications.

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive

benefits with respect to any week only if it has been found

that: —

(1) he has made claim for benefits in accordance with

the provisions of section 31-240 and has registered for

work at the public employment bureau or other agency

designated by the administrator within such time limits,

with such frequency and in such manner as the admin-

istrator may prescribe, provided failure to comply with

POLL LORAIN Abd DAA RT Ss NBS IEE ate Eaiehana

-1Sa-

this condition may be excused by the administrator upon

a showing of good cause therefor; ... . .

(3) he has been paid wages by an employer who was

subject to the provisions of this chapter during the base

period of his current benefit year in an amount at least

equal to thirty times his benefit rate for total unemploy-

ment, some part of which amount has been paid or was

earned in at least two different calendar quarters of such

base period.

Conn. Gen. Statg §31-24] Initial determination

The administrator, or a deputy or representative desig-

nated by him and herinafter referred to as an examiner,

shall promptly examine the initiating claim and, on the

basis of the facts found by him, shall determine whether

or not such claim is valid and, if valid. the weekly amount

of benefits payable and the maximum possible duration

thereof. \

13. After an initial determination of eligibility is made

by defendant, the claimant customarily reports bi-weekly at his

local unemployment compensation office to receive his benefit

checks for the preceding two-week period.

14. Plaintiff Steinberg filed an initiating claim for unem-

ployment benefits on or about April 17, 1971, was declared

eligible and received weekly benefits through October 9, 1971.

15. On October 27, 1971. plaintiff Steinberg reported to

the unemployment compensation office to receive his benefits .

for the weeks ending October 16 and 23. 1971. Following an

informal discussion with an unemployment office “interviewer”

in November, Mr. Steinberg was told he would not receive his

unemployment checks.

16. On November 16, 197] Steinberg received written no-

tice that he was disqualified retroactive to October 10, 1971 for

failure to be “available for work” and make “reasonable efforts

to obtain work”, as required by Conn. Gen. Stats. §31-235(2).

17. On November 5, 197] plaintiff Steinberg appealed

the termination of benefits. A hearing was held before an ap-

-l6a-

peals Commissioner on January 3, 1972 and the Commissioner

subsequently upheld the termination of benefits.

18. Plaintiff Paskewitz filed an initiating claim for un-

employment compensation benefits in August, 197!, was de-

clared eligible and received benefits until February, 972.

19. On February 16, 1972, Paskewitz’s applicat.on for ex-

tended benefits pursuant to Conn. Gen. Stats. $31-252(b) was

approved.

20. On March 2, 1972 plaintiff Paskewitz went to the

Enfield Unemployment office to collect his first checks for Ex-

tended Benefits and was told that his payments were being sus-

pended or terminated as the Unemployment Compensation

Department had made an error in the determination of his

eligibility: When Mr. Paskewitz inquired as to the specific reason

for this action, he was told that his case was being “investigated”.

21. Plaintiff Paskewitz appealed this termination on

March 2, 1972. A hearing was scheduled in August, 1972/b\ut

was postponed at the request of Mr. Paskewitz’s attorney. ‘he

appeal was heard on October I1, 1972, but to date, the Com-

missioner has not rendered a decision.

22. Plaintiff Triana filed an initiating claim for unem-

ployment benefits on or about June 18, 1972, was determined

eligible, and received weekly benefits through July 8, 1972.

23. On July 27, 1972, Mrs. Triana went to the Bridgeport

Unemployment Compensation office to receive her benefits

checks for the weeks ending July 15 and July 22, 1972.

24. After speaking briefly with an unemployment office

“interviewer”, Mrs. Triana was told that her benefits were being

terminated indefinitely, retroactive to July 9, 1972, because she

had not made “reasonable efforts to find work”. (Plaintiff

Triana’s affidavit, dated September 12, 1972, already on file with

this Court, is hereby incorporated as if fully pleaded herein).

25. On or about August 7, 1972, Triana filed an appeal

on the termination of benefits. Because of the large backlog of

pending appeals, totaling 6,100 state-wide as of August 31, 1972,

A LA opt

-17a-

her appeal was not heard by an unemployment Commissioner

until October 27, 1972.

26. On November 10, 1972. the Commissioner rendered

his decision. The Commissioner's findings of fact included a

finding that Mrs. Triana “was desperate for work and sought

all types of work in the local labor market.” The Commissioner's

decision was that Mrs. Triana was incorrectly declared. ineli-

gible for the four weeks between July 29. 1972 and August 18,

1972 and that she was entitled to benefits for that period. (A

cop of the Commissioner's decision is attached to this

Amended Complaint as Attachment B).

27. Plaintiff Triana was scheduled to receive the wrong-

fully withheld benefits on November 27, 1972 but on that date

was told that release of the checks had not yet been approved.

28. Plaintiff Miranda filed an initiating claim for unem-

ployment benefits on July 2, 1972, was determined eligible and

received benefits through August 12, 1972.

29. On August 27, 1972, Mr. Miranda reported to the

Bridgeport Unemployment C ompensation office to receive his

benefit checks for the weeks ending August 19 and 26, 1972.

Following a brief discussion with a department examiner, Mr.

Miranda was told that he would no longer receive benefits be-

cause he had not made “reasonable efforts to find work™. (Plain-

tiff Miranda’s affidavits, dated September 6, 1972 and October

18, 1972 which are already on file with this Court. are hereby

incorporated as if fully pleaded herein.)

30. On September 11, 1972. Miranda received written no-

tice that all claims from August 13, 1972 were disapproved and

on September 13. 1972 Miranda {iled an appeal.

31. A fact-finding appeal hearing was held before an Un-

employment Commissioner on October 17, 1972.

32. On October 24, 1972 the Commissioner rendered his

written deicision and held that during all periods in question

Mr. Miranda had “demonstrated a sincere effort to seek em-

ployment within the meaning of the Unemployment Compen-

sation Act” and therefore was eligible for benefits withheld for

: ; >

Deiterisecicitnserisoin ses tt Sale weet

SO RNR BRE CLE

-18a-

the eight week period trom August 13, 1972 to the date of the

appeal hearing. (A copy of the appeal decision is attached to

the Amended Complaint as Attachment C.)

33. On November 23, 1972, plaintiff Miranda received

the unemployment compensation benefits which had been wrong-

fully withheld from him.

34. The weekly benefits of each plaintiff were terminated,

suspended, or withheld without a prior due process hearing

pursuant to defendant's statewide policy, authorized by Conn.

Gen. Stats. §31-241 which provides in pertinent part as follows:

The administrator, or deputy or representative desig-

signated by him and hereinafter referred to as an exam-

iner shall promptly examine each claim for a benefit

payment for a week of unemployment and, on the basis

of facts found by him, shall determine whether or not

the claimant is eligible to receive such benefit payment

for such week and the amount of benefits payable for

such week... .. Such decision shall be final and benefits

shall be paid or denied in accordance therewith unless

the claimant. . . . within seven days after such notifica-

tion was mailed to his last known address .. . . files an

appeal from such decision and applies for a hearing.

35. Plaintiffs Steinberg, Triana and Miranda were denied

unemployment benefits for allegedly failing to comply with the

statutory “work effort” requirements as set forth in Conn. Gen.

Stats. §§31-225(2) and 31-236(1):

§31-235(2)

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive

benefits with respect to any week only if it has been

found that...

(2) he is physically and mentally able to work and is

available for work and has been and is making reason-

able efforts to obtain work.

§31-236 — Disqualifications

“An individual shall be ineligible for benefits (1) If the

administrator finds that he has failed without sufficient

cause either to apply for available, suitable work when

-19a-

directed so to do by the public employment bureau or the

administrator, or to accept suitable employment when of-

fered him by the public employment bureau or by an em-

Ployer, such ineligibility to continue for the week in which

such failure occurred and for the next four following weeks.

Suitable work shall mean either employment in his usual

occupation or field or other work for which he is reason-

ably fitted, provided such work is within a reasonable dis-

tance of his residence, and. in determinating whether or

not any work is suitable for an individual, the adminis-

* lator may consider the degree ‘of risk involved in his

health, safety and morals. his physical fitness and prior

training and experience, his skills, his previous wage level

and his length of unemplovment.

36. Upon information and belief defendant has no written

Standards or regulations with respect to Conn. Gen. Stats.

§$§31-235 (2) and 31-236(!) and the application of said statutes

is left to the subjective determinations of numerous interview

and claim examiners employed by defendant.

37. The lack of written Standards and regulations with

respect to Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-235(2) and 31-236(1) make it

difficult for claimants who are adversely affected by the opera-

tion of said statutes to receive a meaningful, due process appeal

hearing before an Unemployment Commissioner.

38. _ Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-235(2) and 31-236(1) are vague

and arbitrary and, as enacted and as applied to Plaintiffs and

members of their class, have operated to deprive them of pro-

perty without due process of law.

39. Defendant's policy and practice of terminating or

withholding claimants’ unemployment benefits without a prior

due process hearing -and the overburdened appeal process,

Operates to deny plaintiffs and members of their class their

Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. Said poli-

cy and practice is also in conflict with the Social Security Act,

42 U.S.C. §503(a)(1) which provides in relevant part:

The Secretary of Labor shall make no certification of

payment to any State unless he finds the law of such

State, approved by the Secretary of Labor under the

Federal Unemployment Tax Act. includes provisions for

€

SR RES Ee Geet BIRR ARNT Ne CRIN ONE NN lg 8 ge pnt ee *

-20a-

(1) such methods of administration as are reasonably

calculated to ensure full payment of unemployment com-

pensation when due. (Emphasis added).

40. Plaintiff and members of their class have suffered and

will continue to suffer irreparable injury until the Defendant's

above described practices and the Connecticut Statutes which

authorize said practices are declared illegal and unconstitutional

and are enjoined by this Court.

41. Plaintiffs and their class have no adequate adminis-

trative remedy or remedy at law.

WHEREFORE,

Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated respectfully pray that this Court:

1. Assume jurisdiction of this case and set this case down

for a prompt hearing;

2. Certify, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and 23(b)(2) F.R.C.P.

that this case may proceed as a class action;

3. Enter a final judgment declaring that:

(a) Defendant’s practice of terminating, suspending,

withholding or reducing unemployment compensation benefits

of plaintiffs and members of their class who have been deter-

mined eligible and subsequently ineligible pursuant to an ad-

ministrative decision without a Goldberg v. Kelly prior hearing,

is invalid under the Social Security Act 42 U.S.C. §503(a)(1)

and the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment;

(b) Conn. Gen. Stats. §§31-241 and 31-243, insofar as

they authorize defendant’s practice of terminating, suspending,

withholding or reducing unemployment benefits without a Gold-

berg v. Kelly prior hearing, conflict with the Social Security Act

42 U.S.C. §503(a)(1) and the Due Process Clause of the Four-

teenth Amendment and are, therefore, invalid.

that:

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive

benefits with respect to any week only if it has been

found that...

AQAA PD oe aes DAN, Gk | ae - oo Sed be Gee eT cae ae “

, l P

~<la- =

(2) he is. . . available for work and has been and is mak-

ing reasonable efforts to abtain work.

conflicts with §503(a)(1) of the Social Security Act and the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is therefore,

invalid.

(d) Conn. Gen. Stats. §$31-236(1) insofar as it pro-

vides that:

An individual shall] be ineligible for benefits (1) If the ad-

ministrator finds/that he has failed without sufficient

cause either te~apply for available. suitable work when

directed so tg do by the public employment bureau or

the inistrator, or to accept suitable employment

when offered him by the public employment bureau or

by an employer, such ineligibility to continue for the

week in which such failure occurred and for the next

four following weeks. Suitable work shall mean either

employment in his usual occupation or field or other

work for which he is reasonably fitted, provided such

work is within a reasonable distance of his residence and,

in determining whether or not any work is suitable for an

individual, the administrator may consider the degree of

risk involved in his health, safety and morals, his physi-

cal fitness and prior training and experience, his skidls.

his previous wage level and his length of unemployment.

§$31-236 Disqualificat

conflicts with §503(a)(1) of the Social Security Act and the Due

Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment and is, therefore.

invalid.

4. Issue a permanent injunction pursuant to Rule 65

F.R.C.P. enjoining defendant, his successors in office, agents,

employees and all other persons acting in concert with them

from:

(a) Suspending, withhoiding, terminating or reducing

the unemployment benefits of plaintiffs and members of their

class who have been determined eligible and subsequently in-

eligible pursuant to an administrative decision without a Gold-

berg v. Kelly prior hearing, and

Biairarivina irnip

ee ee oo

. PE aR ot © Un Mee a

-22a-

(b) Suspending, withholding, terminating or reducing

the unemployment benefits of plaintiffs and members of their

class on the basis of Conn. Gen. Stats. $§31-235(2) and 31-236(1).

5. Allow plaintiffs their costs herein and grant such other

and further relief as may be just and proper.

(Signatures of Counsel Omitted in Printing)

ee natiinietee

-23a-

ATTACHMENT A

§ 31-230. Benefit year and base period

; An individual's benefit year shall commence with the begin-

ning of the week with respect to which he has filed a valid initi-

ating claim and shall continue for the remainder of the calendar

quarter in which such week begins and for the next three calen-

dar quarters, plus the remainder of any uncompleted calendar

week at the end of such period. The base period of a benefit

year shall be the first four of the five most recently completed

calendar quarters prior to such benefit year. As used in this

section, an initiating claim shall be deemed valid if the claimant

is unemployed and meets the requirements of subsections (1)

and (3) of section 31-235. The base period of an individual's

benefit year shall include Wages paid by any nonprofit organiza-

tion electing reimbursement in lieu of contributions. or by the

State and by any town, city or other political or governmental

subdivision of or in this state or of any municipality to such per-

son with respect to whom such employer is subject to the provi-

sions of this chapter.

(1949 Rev.. § 7503: 1949. Supp. § 63la: 1953. Supp. § 2308¢; 1955. Supp.

§ 306Kd: 1969. P_A. 700, § 4: 1971, PLA. 835, § 12. eff. July 1. 1971.)

§ 31-235. Benefit eligibility conditions: qualifications

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive bene-

fits with respect to any Week only if it has been found that

(1) he has made claim for benefits in accordance with the

Provisions of section 31-240 and has registered for work at the

public employment bureau or other agency designated by the ad-

ministrator within such time limits, with such frequency and in

such manner as the administrator may prescribe, provided fail-

ure to comply with this condition may be excused by the admin-

istrator upon a showing of good cause therefor:

(2) he is physically and mentally able to work and is ayail-

able for work and has been and is making reasonable efforts to

obtain work.

Doha WAAL Ae

LR SMe Ria is

-24a-

(3) he has been paid wages by an emplover who was sub-

ject to the provisions of this chapter during the base period of

his current benefit vear in an amount at least equal to thirty

times his benefit rate for total unemployment. some part of

which amount has been paid or was earned in at least two dif-

ferent calendar quarters of such base period.

(1949 Rev.. $ 7807; 1953, Supp. § es 1955, Supp. § 3072d: 1968S, PLA. SSO.

§ 4 eff. Jukes, 1965; 1967, PLA. 790, § 13: 1967 Public Act 790, § 23 eft. July

1, 1967, 1971, PLA. 835, § 14, eft. duly 1, 1971.)

§ 31-236. Disqualifications

An individual shall be ineligible for benetits

(1) If the administrator finds that he has failed without

sufficient cause either to apply for available, suitable work when

directed so to do by the public employment bureau or the ad-

ministrator, or to accept suitable employment when offered him

by ie puslic employimets penis or by an eemployer aueh bs

ind for the next four following eer Suitable work shall mean

either employment in his usual occupation or field or other

work for which he is reasonably fitted, provided such work is

within a reasonable distance of his residence, and, in determin-

ing whether or not any work ts suitable for an individual, the

administrator may consider the degree of risk involved to his

health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training

and experience, his skills, his previous wage level and his length

of unemployment, but. notwithstanding anyother provision of

this chapter, no work shall be deemed suitable nor shall benetits

be denied under this chapter to any otherwise eligible individual

for refusing to accept work under any of the following condi-

tions:

. . . — . - .

(a) If the position offered is vacant due directly to a

strike, lockout or other labor dispute:

(b) if the wages. hours or other conditions of work

offered are substantially less favorable to the individual

than those prevailing for similar work in the locality:

dual would be required to join a company union or to

resign from or refrain from joining any bona fide labor

organization:

alleen eee

ET ete a ann ati

-25a-

(d) if the position offered is for work which com-

mences or ends between the hours of one and six o'clock

in the morning if the administrator finds that such work

would constitute a high degree of risk to the health,

safety or morals of the individual, or would be bevond

the physical capabilities or fitness of the individual or

there is no suitable transportation available from the

claimant's home to or from his Place of employment.

wr.

31-241. Initial determination

The administrator, ora deputy or representative designated

by him and hereinafter referred to as an examiner, shall prom!

Iv examine the initiating claim and. on the basis of the facts

found by him, shall determine whether or not such claim is

Valid and, if valid. the Weekly amount of. benetits pavable and

the maximum possible duration thereof. He shall promptly no-

uly the claimant of the decision and the reasons therefor, which

notification shall set forth the Provision of this section for ap-

peal. The administrator, or deputy or representative designated

by him and hereinafter referred to. as an examiner, shall

promptly examine each claim for a benefit payment for a week

of unemployment and, on the basis of the facts found by him.

shall determine whether or not the claima nt is eligible t@ receive

such benetit payment for such week and the amount of benefits

payable for such week. He shall Promptly notify the claimant,

and the employers against whose merit rating accounts compen-

sable separations due to any benefits awarded by the decision

might be charged. of the decision and the reasons therefor,

Which notification shall set forth the Provision of this section for

appeal, provided any employer who claims that the claimant is

ineligible for benefits because his unemployment is due to the

eXistence of a labor dispute at such employer's factory, estab-

lishment or other premises, shall be notified of the decision and

the reasons therefor, whether or not a compensable separation

due to benefits awarded by the decision might be charged

against such employer's merit ratingsaecount. The state and

any political subdivision subject to this chapter shall be notified

of any decision on a claim in which it is designated as a base pe-

riod employer. Such decision shall be final and benefits shall be

paid or denied in accordance therewith unless the claimant or

any of such employers, within seven days after such notification

pI LS RE PE

Recreate he ee eer a at eee

ete uae

is SbF aera bay.

ba cn

-26a-

was mailed to his last-known address, exclusive of any Sundays

or holidays falling within such period, files an appeal from such

decision and applies for a hearing. If the last day for filing an

appeal falls on any day when the offices of the employment se-

curity division are not open for business, such last day shall be

extended to the next business day. Where the administrator or

examiner has determined that the claimant ts eligible for bene-

fits and the employer has initiated an appeal under the provi-

sions of section 31-242, a hearing shall be forthwith granted

upon the application of the claimant to the administrator or ex-

aminer concerned for the payment of benefits during the pen-

dency of the appeal before the unemployment compensation

commissioner. For good cause shown the administrator or ex-

aminer may allow the payment of benefits, as long as the claim-

antsshall be otherwise eligible therefor, during the pendency of

the appeal before the unemployment compensation commission-

er, and until such time as the said commissioner has rendered

his decision on appeal. No examiner shall participate in any

- case in which he is an interested party. Any person who has

filed-a claim for benefits pursuant to an agreement entered into

by the administrator with the proper agency under the laws of

the United States, whereby the administrator makes payment of

unemployment compensation out of funds supplied by the United

States, may in like manner file an appeal from the decision on

such claim and apply for a hearing, and the United States or the

agency thereof which had employed such person may in like

manner appeal from the decision on such claim and apply for a

hearing.

(1949 Rev., § 7513; 1955, Supp. § 3077d; 1957, P.A. 596, § 5: 1965, P.A. 347:

1967, P.A. 790, § 15; 1971, P.A. 835, § 22, eff. July 1, 1971.)

§ 31-243. Continuous jurisdiction

_ Jurisdiction over benefits shall be continuous but the initiat-

ing of a valid appeal under section 31-242 or the pendency of

valid appellate proceedings under section 31-249 shall, if the ap-

pellate tribunaLhas taken jurisdiction, stay any proceeding here-

under, but only in respect to the same period and the same par-

ties, but shall not cause the cessation of payment of benefits as

provided by section 31-242. Upon his own initiative, or upon

application of any party in interest, on the ground of a change

in conditions, the administrator,.or the examiner designated by

i -27a-

him, may, at any time within six months after the date of the

original decision, or within such other time limits as may be ap-

plicable under section 31-273, review an award of benefits or the

denial of a claim therefor, in accordance with the procedure pre-

scribed in respect to claims, and may issue a new decision, which

may award, terminate, continue, increase or decrease such bene-

fits. Such new decision shall be appealable under the provisions

of section 31-242 within the time prescribed in section 31-241.

and where the claimant has been free from fault, a redetermina-

tion or new decision shall not affect benefits paid under a prior

order.

(1949 Rev.. § 7515, 1971, PLA. 835, § 24. eff. July 1. 1971.)

-28a-

ATTACHMENT B

Case No. 2671-D-72 UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

285 Golden Hill Street

Delia F. Triana Bridgeport, Connecticut 06604

153 Lewis Street

Brizeport, Connecticut

Cats ellaetia Sie cei Decal |

SS No. 048-48-0259 LOCAL OFFICE NO. 2

The Administrator Mailing Date

Unemployment November 10, 1972

Compensation Act «

APPEARANCES: The claimant, together with Mrs. Mar-

garita Torres, interpreter, and Attorney

John Creane, from Legal Services. Mr.

John Blair, Fact Finding Examiner, for

the Administrator.

The claimant filed a Total Additional Claim for benefits as

of June 18, 1972. On July 27, 1972, the Administrator disap-

proved all claims from July 9, 1972 to Indefinite. Claimant's ap-

peal dated August 7, 1972, was heard in Bridgeport on October

27, 1972.

Bre SERS LANs SF aeRO RRR BO ERT AA Lota ina wy BIE

at OAS oe aa et

FINDING OF FACTS

ee ke ee

1. Claimant is forty-five years of age, married, four chil-

dren, ages eight, ten, thirteen, and fifteen.

2. Claimant is not employed at present, and is available

for full-time work on all shifts.

3. Claimant uses public transportation or walks to and

from place of employment.

4. Claimant's husband has a car, worked three to eleven

7 shift.

5. Claimant has a language barrier and uses her fifteen

year old son as an interpreter when seeking employment.

-29a-

, 6. Unemployment Rules and Regulations were explained

to claimant at interview with Connecticut State Employment

Service, by Spanish Interpreter.

7. Claimant sought employment in the local labor market.

submitted lists of names of prospective employers whom she

had contacted.

8. Claimant was desperate for work. sought all types of

work in the local labor market.

DECISION

To be eligible for benefits under the Unemployinent Com-

pensation Act, an individual must make a sincere and honest

effort to obtain employment. Since the efforts of the claimant

for the weeks ending July 15, 1972 and July 22, 1972 were ne-

gligible she was correctly declared ineligible for benefits. Since

the efforts of the claimant during the four weeks following --

weeks ending July 29, 1972 to August 18, 1972, had greatly im-

proved, and as she had exposed herself to the labor market, she

was incorrectly declared ineligible for this four week period.

The decision of the Administrator for the weeks ending

July 15, 1972 and July 22, 1972 is affirmed. For the weeks end-

ing July 29, 1972 to August 19, 1972 the decision of the Ad-

ministrator in denying benefits is reversed,

Timotuy J. LOUGHLIN

Commissioner

The only appeal from this decision is to the Superior Court

and such appeal must be taken within fourteen days from the

date of this decision. Six copies of this appeal stating the grounds

on which you assert this decision is incorrect must be filed in

this office within the aforesaid fourteen days.

Ein i SN ee a

Re eT RAIDS 00 eh ALORS ake hs AR as

——

-30a-

ATTACHMENT C

Case No. 3323-B-72 UNEMPLOYMENT COMMISSION

285 Golden Hill Street

Juan Miranda Bridgeport, Connecticut

749 Hallet Street

Bridgeport, Connecticut Local Office No. 2

SS No. 581-64-7882

vs.

The Administrator Mailing Date

Unemployment October 24, 1972.

Compensation Act

APPEARANCES: The claimant, together with Attorney John

Creane, Esq. Counsel

The claimant filed a Total claim as of July 2, 1972. On

September 11, 1972 the Administrator disapproved all claims

from August 13, 1972. Claimant’s appeal dated September 13,

1972, was heard in Bridgeport on October 17, 1972.

FINDING OF FACTS

1. Claimant is a married man, aged thirty-eight, with two

children.

2. Claimant was last employed at the Felix Brass Com-

pany for a period of one year and his date of termination was

June 29, 1972.

3, Claimant was disqualified by the Administrator on the

issue of effort.

4. During the eight week period of time in question, the

claimant has sought employment at least twenty-four places

within the labor market. ‘

DECISION

The Unemployment Compensation Law provides that to

be available for work within the meaning of the unemployment

-3la-

compensation statute, a claimant must be ready, able and will-

ing to accept suitable employment and must expose himself

unequivocally to the labor market.

The claimant, during the period of time in question, has

demonstrated a sincere effort to seek employment within the

meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Law and is

eligible for benefits for the period of time in question.

The decision of the Auministrator in denying benefits is

reversed. .

PETER J. LAssoGNa. Commissioner

Fourth District

The only appeal from this decision is to the Superior Court

and such appeal must be taken within 14 Svs from the date of

this decision. Six copies of this appeal Staiing the grounds on

which you assert this decision is incorrect, must be filed in this

office within the aforesaid fourteen days. .

MEER he ATA a eit aaa

-32a-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

(Title Omitted in Printing)

ANSWER TO AMENDED COMPLAINT

No answer is made to the “Introduction” as no answer

seems to be necessary.

1. The defendant denies that part of paragraph | which

alleges or implies that this is a class suit. The rest of said para-

graph is admitted.

2. Although paragraph 2 seems to be a prayer for relief,

it is admitted solely to the extent that it alleges what the plain-

tiffs are seeking.

3. Paragraph 3 is denied.

4. As to paragraphs 4 through 9 inclusive, this defendant

has no knowledge or information, and, therefore, leaves the

plaintiffs to their proof.

5. So much of paragraph 10 as alleges that the defendant

was sued in his individual capacity is denied. The rest of said

paragraph is admitted.

6. Paragraph 11 is denied. (An initial determination of

eligibility is made after a claim is determined to be valid.)

7. Paragraph 12 is admitted except for the implication

that the statutes cited are the sole provisions relating to the

initial determination of eligibility; said implication is denied.

8. Paragraph 13 is admitted except for the word “cus-

‘tomarily” which is denied.

9. Paragraph 14 is admitted.

10. The first sentence of Paragraph 15 is admitted. As for

the rest and remainder of said paragraph it is denied.

Demat iit a bts into my

« -33a-

Il. The date of November 16, 197] cited in paragraph 16

is denied. The rest of said paragraph is admitted.

12. The date of January 3, 1972 cited in paragraph 17

is denied. The rest of said paragraph is admitted.

13. Paragraphs 18 and 19 are admitted.

14. As to paragraph 20, the defendant has no knowledge

or information, and, therefore, leaves the plaintiffs to their

proof.

15. Paragraph 21 is admitted.

16. As to paragraphs 22 through 24 inclusive, this de-

fendant has no knowledge or information, and, therefore, leaves

the plaintiffs to their proof. Paragraphs 5 and 7 of the plain-

tiff Triana’s affidavit of September 12, 1972, cited in paragraph

24 of the Amended Complaint, are denied. As to the rest of

the affidavit, the defendant has no knowledge or information.

and, therefore, leaves the plaintiffs to their proof.

17. Paragraphs 25 and 26 are admitted. Any implication

in paragraph 26 to the effect that the Commissioner's Decision

was completely in Mrs. Triana’s favor is denied.

18. The word “wrongfully” in paragraph 27 is denied.

As to the rest of said paragraph, the defendant has no knowl-

edge or information, and, therefore, leaves the plaintiffs to their

proof.

19. Paragraph 28 is admitted.

20. As to the first sentence in Paragraph 29, the defend-

ant has no knowledge or information, and, therefore. leaves the

plaintiffs to their proof. The rest of said paragraph is denied,

as is paragraphs 5, 10 and II of the plaintiff Miranda's affi-

davit of September 6, 1972 and paragraphs 3 and 4 of his affi-

davit of October 18, 1972. As to the rest and remainder of said

paragraphs of the affidavits, the defendant has no knowledge '

or information, and, therefore, leaves the plaintiffs to their proof.

21. Paragraphs 30, 31 and 32 are admitted.

eR E Nt PPS SRS Es Ah ERIE St ON Bite 2 PEELE RED PEN CPE NILE BES. TCP SCID ie ABE EER irl es IETS. pase a »

-34a-

22. As to paragraph 33, the defendant has no knowledge

or information, and, therefore, leaves the plaintiffs to their

proof.

23. So much of paragraph 34 as states “without a prior

due process hearing” is denied. The rest of said paragraph is

admitted. Any implication in said paragraph to the effect that

Section 31-241 Conn. Gen. Stats. is the only statutory basis for

the defendant's decision to terminate, suspend, or _ withhold

benefit payments is denied.

24. The word “allegedly” cited in paragraph 35 is denied.

The rest of said paragraph is admitted. Any implication in said

paragraph to the effect that the quoted provisions of Section

31-236 Conn. Gen. Stats. are the only statutory requirements

pertinent to the denial of benefits to the plaintiffs Steinberg,

Triana and Miranda is denied.

25. Paragraphs 36, through 41 inclusive are denied.

(Signature of Counsel and Certification Omitted in Printing)

-35a-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

(Title Omitted in Printing)

STIPULATION TO FACTS

The undersigned parties Stipulate and agree to the follow-

ing facts for the purpose of aiding the court in deciding the

above-captioned case on the merits.

1. Unemployment insurance benefits in Connecticut are

paid entirely out of a trust fund maintained solely by contribu-

tions, interest and penalties paid by employers in Connecticut.

If the Connecticut program is in compliance with provisions of

Federal law, the Federal government pays the costs of adminis-

tration. 42 U.S.C. Section 502, 503.

THE DEPARTMENT'S PROCEDURES FOR INITIAL

DETERMINATION OF ELIGIBILITY

2. In order for a claimant to be found initially entitled to

unemployment compensation benefits, he must meet the require-

ments of various sections of Chapter. 567 of the Connecticut

General Statutes. Connecticut General Statutes, Section 31-241

provides:

Initial determination:

The administrator, or deputy or representative desig-

nated by him and hereinafter referred to as an examiner,

shall promptly examine the initiating claim and, on the

basis of the facts found by him, shall determine whether

or not such claim is valid and, if valid. the weekly

amount of benefits payable and the maximum possible

duration thereof.

A valid initiating claim is defined in Connecticut. General

Statutes, Sections 31-230 and 31-325(1)(3) as follows:

Section 31-230.

... As used in this section, an initiating claim shall be

deemed valid if the claimant is unemployed and meets

the requirements of sub-section (1) and (3) of section

31-235.

i RS At at Wiha he PME Spnet

eh ees

Cole SOS

-36a-

Section 31-235. Benefits Eligibility Conditions; Qualfica-

tions;

An unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive

benefits with respect to any week only if it has been

found that: (1) he has made claim for benefits in accord-

ance with the provisions of Section 31-240 and has re-

gistered for work at the Public Employment Bureau or

other agency designated by the Administrator within

such time limits, with such frequency and in such manner

as the Administrator may prescribe, provided failure to

comply with this condition may be excused by the ad-

ministrator upon a showing of a good cause thereof; . . .

(3) he has been paid wages by an employer who was

subject to the provisions of this chapter during the base

period of his current benefit year in an amount at least

equal to thirty times his benefit rate for total unemploy-

ment, some part of which amount has been paid or was

earned in at least two different calendar quarters of such

base period.

3. In addition to the above provisions, a claimant may be

disqualified for varying lengths of time at the initial stage un-

der the disqualification provisions of Connecticut General Sta-

tutes, Section 31-236. The disqualifications include but are not

limited to, (1) leaving suitable work voluntarily and without

sufficient cause connected with work; (2) being discharged for

willful misconduct; (3) leaving employment to attend a school,

college, university as a regularly enrolled student; (4) receiving

benefits in a prior benefit year and not again becoming em-

ployed and paid wages since the commencement of said prior

benefit year in an amount equal to at least one-hundred fifty

dollars ($150.00) and; (5) participating or supporting a strike

which leads to unemployment.

4. When a claimant applies for unemployment compensa-

tion insurance benefits, he files a form entitled “New Claim for

Unemployment Compensation” (Form U.C.-15) and is inter-

viewed by an employee of the department. This interview is

necessary to determine, in part, if the claim is a “valid initiating

claim”.

5. A check of the claimant’s wage credits is then made by

the department prior to an initial determination of eligibility.

™ J

sii eealatadnant ahtaiai anita eer ee aE ey PRS $A TNS

-37a-

The claimant is assigned a day of the week. based upon the e

claimant's social security number, to report to the Unemploy-

ment Compensation Office; when he does so the department, if

it has found him to be eligible, then issues a “claim for first

benefit payment” which is signed by the claimant and which

authorizes the first payment of benefits to the claimant.

CONTINUED ELIGIBILITY PROCEDURE

6. Thereafter, claimants who have been initially deter-

mined eligible report bi-weekly to the local unemployment com-

pensation office to file a “Continued Claim for Unemployment

Compensation” (U.C.-46). On the back of this U.C.46 form

-the claimant declares under oath that during the calendar weeks

for which he is claiming benefits he has been able to work,

available for work and made reasonable efforts to find work,

Was not engaged in self-employment; did not receive other states

or federal unemployment benefits, and: did not attend school

during the calendar weeks for which he is claiming benefits.

7. Prior to signing any statements that he had made rea-

sonable efforts to obtain work and has been available for work,

a claimant, if department policy has been followed in his case,

has been supplied with a booklet entitled “Your Rights and Re-

sponsibilities Under The Connecticut Unemployment Law.” In

this booklet, the terms “available for work”, and “reasonable

efforts to find work” are defined on page 21 as follows:

“AVAILABLE FOR WORK. You must be ready, will-

ing and able to take any suitable job ona full-time basis.

“REASONABLE EFFORTS TO FIND WORK". Your

efforts to get a job must be the efforts which a person

out of a job would make if he is sincerely looking for

work.

8. Since June, 1972, claimants have been required to sub-

mit a “Continued Claim Work Effort Information Form”, (Form

U.C.-45) when filing their claim for bi-weekly benefits. This

form is submitted in addition to the sworn statement on Form

U.C.-46 concerning reasonable efforts to find work.

pees AES THOME CIE Rat GSA ED EP AO RB,

-38a-

9. At each bi-weekly visit to the unemployment com-

pensation office, the claimant presents completed forms U.C.-

45 and U.C.-46 in the Claims Line to a department employee

and is routinely given his benefit checks for the two-week peri-

od unless the department employee raises an issue of disqualifi-

cation.

10. If a question of possible disqualification arises the

claimant is not given his benefit checks but instead is referred

to another line for a “seated interview”.

Il. After reaching the head of the “seated interview”

line, the claimant is interviewed by a claims examiner. The

claims examiner ascertains from the claimant facts as to pos-

sible disqualification. If the claims examiner determines that the

claimant is eligible, the claimant is referred back to the Claims

Line to pick up his checks. If however, the claims examiner de-

termines that he has not met the statutory requirements, the

claimant does not receive his benefit checks and is told that he

will receive written notification of the department's decision

concerning his eligibility for the weeks in question. This notice

is a letter stating the reason for the non-payment citing a sta-

tutory provision therefor, and informing the claimant of his

right to appeal. These letters are sent out under the signature

of the office manager.

12. If a question arises during the “seated interview”

. which involves third party information, the department employee

will make an attempt to contact the third party, generally an

employer, while the claimant is present and will take into con-

sideration the third party information in reaching a decision.

However, if the third person cannot be reached at that time, the

claims examiner will proceed to make a determination as to

whether the person will receive benefits for the two-week period.

13. By an Interoffice Memorandum dated April 2, 1973,

procedures were established whereby the Employment Service

office employee who has stated, by memorandum, that a claim-

ant has refused to accept a job referral, is required to be present

when the claimant comes in for his interview. The claimant thus

has the opportunity to confront this person,and respond to his

statements concerning the alleged refusal.

-39a-

14. The most common reason for denying benefits to a

claimant who has been initially determined eligible to receive

benefits is an alleged failure to comply with the “reasonable

effort” and “able and available” section of Connecticut General

Statutes, Section 31-235(2). These reasons generally account for

-between 60 and 70 percent of the denial of benefits resulting

from “seated interviews”. Other common reasons for denial of

benefits on a continuing eligibility claim include refusal of a

suitable job offer and disqualifying or deductible income.

15. Eligibility is determined on week-to-week basis even

though the claimant may visit the office on'y bi-weekly. When

a claimant is denied benefits for one or both weeks in a two-

week claims period, the Defendant's written policy is that the

claimant will remain eligible for subsequent time periods so

long as he satisfies eligibility requirements for those periods. In

actual practice, however, some claimants who were found in-

eligible for one claims period and who filed appeals to the Un-

employment Compensation Commission were denied benefits

for later periods on the grounds that “they have appeals pend-

ing’, in violation of the department's written policy.

PARTIES

16. Plaintiff Delia Triana filed a valid additional claim

for unemployment compensation benefits on June 18, 1972 in

Bridgeport, Connecticut, was determined eligible, and received

weekly benefits through July 8, 1972.

17. On or about July 24, 1972, Mrs. Triana reported to

the Bridgeport Unemployment Compensation office to file for

and receive her benefit checks for the weeks ending July 15th,

and July 22nd, 1972.

18. On that day, Mrs. Triana reported to the Claims Line

to pick up her checks. After submitting her U.C.-45 and U.C.-

46 forms, she was told by a department employee that there

was a question as to her eligibility for the two-week period and

that she should get in a different line for a “seated interview”.

19. After waiting in the “seated interview™ line, Mrs. Tri-

ana spoke with a department claims examiner who discussed

Lar Sipaa NANA

Pes Ne.

-40a-

her efforts to obtain work during the two-week period ending

July 22, 1972.

20. The claims examiner, determined that she had failed

to comply with Connecticut General Statutes, Section 31-235(2)

which requires making “reasonable efforts to obtain work”

and she did not receive her checks for the weeks ending July

ISth and July 22nd, 1972 at that time. At two subsequent bi-

weekly appointments at the Bridgeport Unemployment office,

Mrs. Triana was disqualified from receiving benefits for the

four-week period between July 29, 1972 and August 18, 1972

on the grounds that she had failed to make “reasonable efforts

to obtain work”.

21. On or about July 27, 1972, written notice was sent by

the Department to Mrs. Triana ina letter signed by Mrs. Smarz,

the manager of the Bridgeport Unemployment Compensation

office, informing her that she was disqualified indefinitely from

July 9, 1972 because she failed to satisfy the “reasonable ef-

forts to obtain work” section of Connecticut General Statutes,

Section 31-235(2). On or about August 7, 1972, Mrs. Triana

filed an appeal on the termination of her benefits. Because of a

large backlog of pending appeals, totaling 6,100 state-wideas of

August 31, 1972, her appeal Was not heard\by an Unemployment

Commissioner until October’ 27, 1972. :

22. On November 10, 1972, the Commissioner rendered

his decision on Mrs. Triana’s appeal. The Commissioner’s find-

ings as fact included the finding that Mrs. Triana “was desper-

ate for work and sought all types of work in the local labor

market”. The Commissioner’s\decision was that Mrs. Triana

was correctly denied benefits for the first two weeks in question

and was incorrectly declared ineligible for the four weeks be-

tween July 29, 1972 and August 18, 1972, and that she was en-

titled to benefits for the latter period. She was paid accordingly

and neither Mrs. Triana nor the Department of Labor appealed

the Commissioner's decision to Superior Court.

23. Plaintiff Juan Miranda filed an initiating claim for

unemployment benefits effective July 2, 1972 in Bridgeport,

Connecticut, was determined eligible and received benefits

through August 12, 1972. On or about August 30° 1972, Mr.

Miranda reported to the Bridgeport Unemployment Compensa-

-4la-

tion office to receive his benefit checks for the weeks ending

August 19th and 26th, 1972.

24. On that day, Mr. Miranda went to the Claims Line

to pick up his checks but after showing his U.C.-45 and U.C.-

46 forms he was told by a department employee that there was

a question as to his eligibility for the two-week period and that

he should get in a different line for a “seated interview”.

25. After waiting in the “seated interview” line. Mr. Mi-

randa spoke with a department claims examiner who discussed

Mr. Miranda’s efforts to obtain work during the two-week peri-

od ending August 26, 1972.

26. The claims examiner determined that he had failed to

make “reasonable efforts to obtain work” and therefore failed

to satisfy the statutory requirement of Connecticut General

Statutes, Section 31-235(2), and he did not receive his checks

for the weeks ending August 19, and August 26, 1972 at that

time.

27. On September 11, 1972, written notice was mailed

from the Department, signed by Mrs. Smarz, the manager of

the Bridgeport Unemployment Compensation office, that all

claims from August 13, 1972 were disapproved and on Sep-

tember 13, 1972 Mr. Miranda filed an appeal to the Unemploy-

ment Commissioner. \

28. Said appeal was heard before an Unemployment

Commissioner on October 17, 1972.

29. On October 24, 1972, the Commissioner rendered his

decision and held that during all periods in question, Mr. Mi-

randa had “demonstrated a sincere effort to seek employment

within the meaning of the Unemployment Compensation Act”

and therefore was eligible for benefits withheld for the eight-

week period from August 13, 1972 to the date of the appeal

hearing. The Department of Labor did not appeal this decision

and Mr. Miranda subsequently received the eight-weeks of

benefits.

30. Plaintiff Larry Steinberg filed a valid initiating claim

for une: ployment compensation benefits in Willimantic. Con-

POS ROY Rls ae np pets

Poe er Ne sth Cin Med MeL ein Peer SON weg tT ae ——

Se dits ie SDE eH Ade ehiBt Co AR in

-42a-

necticut on or about April 17, 1971, was declared eligible and

received weekly benefits through October 9, 1971. On October

27, 1971, Mr. Steinberg reported to the Willimantic Unemploy-

ment Compensation office to file for and receive his benefit

checks for the weeks ending October 16, and October 23, 1971.

* 31. On that day he reported to the Claims Line to file for

his benefits but was informed by a department employee that he

should stand in a different line for a “seated interview”. After

discussing his efforts to obtain work with a Department claims

examiner, Mr. Steinberg was informed orally that he would not

receive his unemployment benefit checks for the weeks ending

October 16, and October 23, 1971 because he had failed to use

“sufficient efforts to obtain work”.

32. On or about November 1, 1971, Plaintiff Steinberg

received written notice from the Willimantic Unemployment

Compensation office that he was disqualified retroactive to Oc-

tober 10, 1971 for failure to be “available for work” and failure

to make “reasonable efforts to obtain work” as required by

Connecticut General Statutes, Section 31-235(2).

33. On November 5, 1971, Plaintiff Steinberg appealed the

termination of his benefits to the Unemployment Compensa-

tion Commission. On January 13, 1972 a hearing was held be-

fore an Unemployment Commissioner and on May 10, 1972 the

decision upholding the termination of benefits by the unem-

ployment compensation office was issued by the Commissioner.

The Commissioner's finding as fact included the findings that

Mr. Steinberg” . . . was given not one but several hearings on

his benefit eligibility status . . .”, that he “. . . had every oppor-

tunity to present information favorable to his version of the

facts in his situation. . .”, and that “On August 24, he was again

seated and interviewed by an examiner who told him he must

expend (sic) the scope of his efforts to find work, which up to

that time had been mainly to telephone or go to Locals 37 and

424 of the Iron Workers Union”. Mr. Steinberg did not appeal

the Commissioner's decison to the Superior Court.

34. Plaintiff Cecil Paskewitz filed an initiating claim for

unemployment compensation benefits on August 16, 1971. in

Enfield, Connecticut. On or about October 14, 1971 he was

declared eligible for benefits retroactive to August, 1971 and

received weekly benefits until February, 1972.

a Se a re sae s

-43a-

35. On February 16, 1972, Mr. Paskewitz’s application

for extended benefits pursuant to Connecticut General Statutes.

Section 31-232, was approved by the Enfield Unemployment

Compensation office.

36. On March 2, 1972, Mr. Paskewitz went to the En-

field Unemployment office to collect his checks for extended

benefits and was told by a department employee that he was

no longer eligible and would not receive extended benefits.

37. Mr. Paskewitz appealed this termination of benefits

on March 2, 1972. A hearing was scheduled in August, 1972

but was postponed at the request of Mr. Paskewitz’s attorney.

The appeal was heard on October 11, 1972, but to date. the Un-

employment Commissioner has not rendered a decision on the

appeal.

38. The weekly unemployment benefits of each Plaintiff

were terminated or withheld pursuant to Defendant's state-wide

procedure authorized by Connecticut General Statutes. Section

31-241 which provides in pertinent part as follows:

The administrator, or deputy or.representative designated

by him and hereinafter referred to as an examiner, shall

promptly examine each claim for a benefit payment

for a week of unemployment and, on the basis of facts

found by him, shall determine whether or not the claim-

ant is eligible to receive-siich benefit payment for such

week .. . Such decision shall be final and benefits shall

be paid or denied in accordance therewith unless the

claimant. . . within seven (7) days after such notification

was mailed to his last known address . . . files an appeal

from such decision and applies for a hearing.

39. The State of Connecticut does not presently partici-

pate in the Aid To Families With Dependent Children-Unem-

ployed Parent Programm. (AFDC-UP).

-A4a-

THE PLAINTIFFS,

By: JoHN M. CREANE

285 Golden Hill Street

Bridgeport, Connecticut

Tel: (203; 336-0141

RayMonr J. KELLY

Tolland-'Windham Legal

Assistance Program,

35 Village Street, P.O. Box 358

Rockvi.le, Connecticut +

Tel: (203) 872-0553

THEIR ATTORNEYS

THE DEFENDANT,

By: DonaLD E. WASIK

Assistant Attorney General

Employment Security Division

Labor Department (AG-7)

Hartford, Connecticut

‘ Tel: (203) 566-3990

ale a ie Ee a -

OLN EOE IROL EE MET ae eH 5 pe ee ——

™ _ FOOT PAL he ee

-4Sa-

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

(Title Omitted in Printing)

STIPULATION AS TO PLAINTIFFS’ EXHIBITS

It is hereby stipulated by and between the parties that the

Plaintiffs’ exhibits Numbers | through 30 described in Plaintiffs’

List of Exhibits, dated May 3, 1973, be admissible, saving any

and all objections to relevancy. .

It is further stipulated that xerographic copies of these ex-

hibits may be submitted in place of the originals.

PLAINTIFFS,

By: JOHN M. CREANE

285 Golden Hill Street

‘Bridgeport, Connecticut

(203) 336-0141

RAYMOND J. KELLY

Joun A. DZIAmMBA

Tolland-Windham

Legal Assistance

746 Main Street, P.O. Box D

Willimantic, Connecticut

(203) 423-8425

DEFENDANT,

By: DonaLp E. Wasik

Assistant Attorney General

Employment Security Division

Labor Department (AG-7)

Hartford, Connecticut

(203) 566-3990

. i,

% *: uae o + rr Oa Oe e ™

Pee, We

4 . |

; -46a- *

3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT a

: FOR THE %y

‘ DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT i

(Title Omitted in Printing)

; STIPULATION TO DEPOSITIONS

i 1. The undersigned parties stipulate and agree that the

1 Deposition of Eleanor Smarz, (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 9.) February

; 8, 1973, and Timothy J. Loughlin (Plaintiffs’ Exhibit 8.) Febru-

i ary 8, 1973 reflect Department policy and are admissible as

: evidence in the above entitled case. :

/ THE PLAINTIFFS,

i By: RAYMOND J. KELLY

; JOHN A. DZIAMBA

; Tolland-Windham

4 Legal Assistance Program

35 Village Street, P.O. Box 358

| Rockville, Connecticut

: e Telephone (203) 872-0553

: JOHN M. CREANE ye

d 285 Golden Hill Street

3 Bridgeport, Connecticut

Telephone (203) 336-0141

THEIR ATTORNEYS

THE DEFENDANT,

By: DONALD E. WASIK

~ Assistant Attorney General

Employment Security Division

Labor Department (AG-7)

Hartford, Connecticut

Telephone (203) 566-3990

-47a-

UNITED STATES DISTPICY COURT

DISTRICT OF CONNECTICUT

———

LARRY STEINBERG, CECI: PASKEWITZ,

DELIA TRIANA, and JUAN MIRANDA

CIVIL’ ACTIO: NO.

JACK A. FUSARI, .Commissioner of Labor,

The Acministrator, The Unemployment

Compensation Act, State of Connecticut

AT BRIDGEPORT

)

| vs. PEBRUARY 8, 1972

)

DONALD 4, TAMIS, ESO,

“ 412 East “Main Street

| ®~*Ageport, Connecticut 06608

DEPOSITION OF ELEANOR H. sw

BRIDGEPORT UNEMPLOY ENT CON

|| APPEARANCES; JOEN M. CREANE,- ESO,

RAY KELLY, ESQ.

35 Villaze Street

P. 0. Box 358

Rockville, Connecticut 06606

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

DONALD E, WASIK, FSa,

Assistant Attorney General

Labor Department (AS-7)

Employment Security Division

Hartford, Connecticut

Attorney for Defendant

15,204

}

a ae iin meee niet Hint santos ean

-48a-

«+e. Deposition of Eleanor H. Smarz, taken on behalf

i of the vlaintiffs in the hereinbefore entitled action, dursuant

i to Rule 30 (a) and (b) (1) and Rule 30 (b) (4) of the Federal

Hl Rules of Civil Procedure. Plaintiffs' Motion For Leave To

i ‘fake Depositions By Means Of A Tane Recorder was granted with-

| out objection Januarv 15, 1973 by Judse Newman. The deposition

| was recorded simultaneously on two “ape recorders and this

| verbatim transcript was typed by an employee of Bridzeport “eral

| Services, Inc., Margarita Torres, who was present at the tal:inz

| of the deposition at the office of Bridgeport Lesal Services, Inc

412 East Main Street, Bridgeport, Connecticut, commencins at

1:45 p.m. on Thursday, February 8, 1973. |

| OATE AND STIPULATIONS

MR. CREANE: The oath and deposition of

Mrs. Smarz will be administered by agreement of the

i aR

1 parties by Attorney Ira Horowitz, a Commissioner of

the Superior Court.

MR. HOROWITZ: Raise your ripht hand: To

you swear that the statements you will give in this de- |

position are the truth, the whole truth and nothihe but

the truth, so help you God?

MRS. SMARZ: I do.

MR. CREANE: The customary stipulations,

which I'll read into the record, have been arreed to by

the parties.

-49a-

STIPULATIONS

It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and among counsel

for the respective parties that all formalities in connection

with the taking of this Geposition, including time, place,

sufficiency of notice, and the authority of the officer before

whom it is being taken may be and hereby are waived;

| It is further stipulated and agreed that objections other

than as to form are reserved to the time of trial;

It is further stipulated and agreed that the readcine and

signing of said deposition by the witness is hereby waived.

MR. CREANE: (directed to Mr. Wasik) The

initial questions will be asked by Ray and then I'll

have some questions and then, of course, you have the

right to cross-examinewhen we're through.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

Q Mrs. Smarz, will you give us your full name and

rr ee et se oe.

address, please?

A Miss Eleanor Helen Smarz, 120 Clirr Street, Shelton,

Connecticut.

“you hold?

A I'm the manager of the Unemployment Compensation

Department in Bridgeport, Connecticut.

Q Would you please tell us how many people work for vou

C3]

-50a-

at the Bridzenort Office? ‘

A At vresent there are 33, plus some that are on loan :

is from the Connecticut State Employment Service. }

9 Of these 33 personnel that work in the Bridgenort 2

Unemployment Compensation Office, how many of them are fact- |

finding examiners? a

A To the best of my knowledge I think I have 9 at 4

present. We've had some changes. j

Bridgevcort Office and by that I mean level, one, two and three? :

A I don't, I'm not sure of the levels. I believe that 4

there are four. d

A Wait a minute, I'm sorry, I could have brought tiese i

figures more accurately with me. We've had some changes tnat o

have taken place, that I'm... : 4

Q Would you be able to supnly those firures for us? j

| A I can very easily if you want them and then you ~ill i

| have them accurately. : :

nine veopvle that you said conduct fact-findine examinations, are 4a

they all entitled-is their job description, fact-findine exasiners, 2

or do they have other job titles? F

A At present they all are fact-finding examiners. ;

sad sue oe

ca i

‘ *

rete

-Sla-

Q They're paid under that salary scale?

A Salary scale, yes.

Q Of the other 24 employees that work in the Bridreport

Office do any of them also conduct fact-finding examinations?

A On occasions.

Q Under what circumstances would they be required to do

fact-finding examinations?

A If its, if we're under extreme pressure and we have

a large-number of fact-findings to do there is somé selective

interviewing that they can do.

Q During the past year were some of these personnel

used as fact-finding examiners, over and above the nine that

are cesignated fact-finding examiners?

A Yes

Q How many?

A, I can't give you the exact figure, out I could obtain

that for you at the office.

Q On a, well, for the purposes of an example. Ona

busy day, how many people would you switch ever to become fact-

finding examiners out of the rest of your staff?

A Well anywhere from say 2 to possibly 6 or more. 1

couldn't tell you that exactly depending on what the circun-

stances were and where they were needed at the time.

Q 0.K. Would you explain for us now, how exactly a

fact-finding determination is conducted?

‘ oui

SOC Ma 22 stern atin ene ae

RTP Me eS eo

ibicinast si Ge) Catia Sate

eileen A CN

-52a-

A Now in what instance are you referring to?

Q Say aman comes in who is, or a woman, who is

already been determined eligible and there's a question now as

to their eligibility and this is a non-monetary determination.

What is the procedure that is normally followed?

A If an issue arises, he is seated, he is asked to be

seated for an interview and then he is called, in turn, by a

fact-finder for an interview. }

> What would start in motion the determination that

tnere had to be a fact-finding on the person?

A The interviewing that occurred on the claim line, is

that wnat you are referring to?

® Yes

A PoSsibly an issue of availability’ on the claim line

may cause this. :

9 O.K. Going back one step then..-Does normally tie

question of eligibility arise when the person goes up to get

his check?

A. Yes

Q What, does he have to present any form to show that

he has complied with the unemployment compensation law?

A He presents an effort form.

Q And what is that form?

A That he has made effort to obtain emoloyment in the

Fe ae ie fe cetera

wo Ging

ACs aba

cia

FRM ck RRC TAUNTS

-S3a-

the past two weeks. These forms are issued to them each week

when they file and they take it home with them, complete it

at home, and return it with them on their next visit.

Q Is that the form that's known as UC-45?

A Yes.

Q And all claimants have to present their UC-45 form

before they can get their checks?

A When they're filing their claim, ves.

Q ‘There is, there. If the line or the number of claimant

that day was very great, is the reoutrement of presentinz the

UC-45 form ever waived?

A io.

® It is required in every case before the claim can

be filed?

A Yes.

what is their job title and position?

A It would be either an employment security aide or an

employment security interviewer.

about availability for work, then the person is directed?

A mo go to the fact-finding to have a seat.

® And what occurs during the actual fact-findinc pro-

cedure?

(9]

Bes PeRNIEe

nS matey poe % eee net i en eae eee 2 MOSM ea eR epee ee

-54a- ,

A The fact-finder will call them to the desk, revicw

¢ wnatever the issue is and discuss the circumstances with then.

i 2 If the issue involves tne failure to make a reason- 4

4 able effort to find work, how will the fact-finder determinc

Waévacr cucre has deen compliance or not? What standards, or

guidelines does he use?

A ‘“eil, each case has to be handled on its own merits.

Ané they have to take into consideration the individual that

Caer ee eT

tney are interviewing. It's difficult to establish this without

a snccific oase. Do you want to cite a case for me and nerhans

I can--

i © If we could use a hynothetical case, where a man has

filled out six places on nis UC-45 form and there is some question

3 in tne employment security aide's mind whether or not these

might have been the same places that he went to the week before,

or whether she's seen these on his previous UC-45 forms, what

would the fact-finding examiner look for to determine the

validity of the search for employment by the claimant?

Pe ee ee es

A Well they take into consideration the man's skills, a

the type of work he's seeking, his availability, the hours that Ly

he's available for work and his, the actual contacts that he's

made to get the job. If it's a repeated effort, he would be

asked, why. This is not always considered unreasonable. ‘The a)

man may be asxed to return to this place at a specific time and :

on —

DUPRE STONE REL ete a ait on Sn —

nm i al ih

PELEONER SSR oI

-5Sa-

this is all taken into consideration and it's on this basis that

the benefits would be either approved or denied.

terminer to see if the person did go to where they said?

A There may be, yes. If they stated they filed applica-

tions and this occured at an interview and to determine whether

or not it's valid, they may contact the employer to find out

wnat actually occurred.

Q Would that be, would that contact occur while the

claimant was there, being interviewed?

A Yes, if its possible for the interviewer to contact

the enployer at that time. Sometimes they can't reach the

emplover at that specific time or there may be extreme pressure

and they can't rcach the employer. They haven't the time to

contact the employer so it would be delayed.

Q If a question of eligibility still arises and the

employer is not able to have been contacted, will the man

receive his benefits for that week if there's still a question

in the fact-finder's mind?

“Oh, he may or may not depending on what the other

circumstances there are involved, in a situation. I couldn't

answer that with a direct yes or not. Let me say this, that in

many instances, the claimant is given benefit of the doubt. But

to say, you know, it's difficult to Give you a direct yes or no

answer in aay of these instances because I don't know the exact

circumstances of the case.

19]

a LEGAL AES Sher y saghiect <5 —— . —_

CE en gil ONE SY IERIE SAPGBROBEE LRP LTE IY tee RL OFT —

eal i PIER ON TI IETHER nt nie pana

PS eT ATS Fete re ee Te

(ewe Te

ely efatie. Pas

a a a il a A Ss ke hen

-56a-

Q If a claimant came in with only three jobs that he

had applied at, and a determination was made by the fact-finder

that this was not sufficient effort to find work and the

claimant said that he had a person who is not with him at the

present time, who could verify that he had been to three other

places, would the man be entitled to his check in that instance;

or would his checx be withheld until he produced the other

evidence?

& In ali probability it may de withheld until h2 pro-

auced the other evidence.

eligibility?

A Onno. As soon as he produced the evidence.

Q Ue coule bring, if he got the individual that after-

noon or the next day?

A That's right. Now if he knew of the places that he had

been and he has. svoken to someone at these places, it wouldn't

be necessary for nim to dring the person, because if they could

verify it they would. In some instances it will expedite it

faster if they present the verson if they can do it.

Q Are some claimants chosen for fact-finding interviews,

on a random basis, being taken out of the claim line?

A On what basis do’ you mean that?

a ae iin ie hem A I TE ie eR a a CSSD

lw]

‘availability. Well let me cite an example. I may ehecl: on a

| dividual whe is laid-off for lack of work and was seekins,

-57a-

9 Ie there a periodic redetermination by the Unemploy-

mer.t Compensation office of people in the benefit line, the ones

taat are waiting on line to get their checks?

A- You mean do we pick specific ones out to interview

at a tine?

Q Yes. Are there any standards that are applied. Do

you pick out every seventh individual?

A On, no.

cetecrnine certain andividual's eliribility?

A, “ot, oh it’s difficult for me. I don't understand

wnat you mean.

2 Would you redetermine, would you seek a redeterminctioi

on specific indivicuals every two months?

A Depending on what the circumstances are and thcir

vonan's availability for employment, say if she‘had several

enildren and there's a, and she may nave babysittine provlens,

something to that effect, more often than I'would on an in-

continual work and there is definitely no problem on nis availadil,

ity for employment. Is that wnat you mean?

Q Yes.

4% That's what you're referring to?

O® Yes. But also will there be a closer scrutiny of

claims that have continued over a longer period of time?

A There might be, trying to determine as to why this

individual is having more difficulty odtaining employment than

someone else.

that require a periodic redetermination of long-term claimants?

A Nothing definite, No.

Q no regulations that you could say, regulation B?

& There is an old DM memorandum that we had several

years ago that we use to refer to, but that more or less is

for periodic re-interviews. But that more or less has gone by

the boari. We use it occasionally as a sort of a general gcuide-

line. .

Q Therefore, is it your statement that there is not

any set standard of redetermination for claimants?

A Well during periods.. Policy will determine more or

less how we will interview the claimants. We will receive a

policy or an instruction from Hartford as to what we are foinz

to Go. It would be Hartford that would determine it to a certain

extent.

-59a-

every tenth or twentieth claimant is eligible for, I mean, is

required to be redetermined by the fact-finder?

A Every tenth or twenieth claimant?

Employment Security Aide who reviewed the JC-45 form when the

claim was presented? ®

A Each case is handled indivic.ually on its own

indivicua~ merits.

2 And you testified earlier tha: all claimants have to

have their UC-45 slins checked before tney can receive tnacir

benefits?

A Yes they all present one when tiey're filin~ for

bencfits.

have you been the manazer of the Bridgeport Office?

A I became manager, Decembe~: 1, 1971.

pensation?

A I started in 1945. I werked until June, I beltcvc,of

1945. I was terminated temporarily came back in 1947, went on

active duty during the Korean conflict and returned after that

and worked for the State ever since.

9 Have you always worked in the Bridgeport officc?

A No.

ey etn S een:

PE Te ee Res

7 BS sod” pits See

SicSenmgestess.

Tad

-60a-

“What other offices have you worked?

A ‘Well for a short period, I worked in the Ansonia

office. That was for a very short period of time, way back in

the 1240's. I manared the Norwalk office from, I believc,

August of 1962 until May,*I think, or June of 1970. ‘tien I

became manager of the Stamford office, then transferred to

Bridcseport. I'm not sure of the exact dates but that's ahout

the length of time.

port anc in Stanford?

a An@ in Norwvalx.

¢ And in Uiorwalk. Did vou hold other positions dSciow

that tf manaser when you worked in the other offices and even

in tae Bridsevort office?

A Well in the other office for the short stay. oa,

well I was also in New Haven. I was a claim-examiner at tat

time. I was a suver-claims examiner, a fact-finder and a

Supervisor while in the Bridgeport office.

the devartment other than fact-finders will be called unon to

do fact-finding examinations or determinations when there is a |

need. Do you ever do fact-finding determinations?

Beer s= font!

eM S

BAHL:

ad 08, es

ZL eee et ott er

ani RRS

(2%

tare

comeeanmannesnsbammautee

OSE RISES 5? he

itl ad ee"

re re

9 eae Bia Bt 2

SAE ie yO Aas UR FRR

wit

/ -6la-

’ /

A At present?

QO Yes.

A Once in a great while.

Do you review thé fact finding determinations made

by your fact-finders?

A My supervi lly reviews all the cases that zo

on appeal or any case that one of the fact-finders will reouest

and on occ Ons I will review also.

You said your supervisor. Is there another manarcr?

4% I have an assistant manager in the Bridgeport office

who is/din charge of the fact-finding.

Q But he is under your authority?

A Yes.

Q So he would be the one. Does he review all fact-

findings determinations?

A iiot all fact-finding determination, no.

, Q Is there any criteria by which a fact-finding de-

termination is review by a supervisor?

No there isn't. On occasions when a situation will

arise where we will doa review of certain instances or certain

issues in your fact-finders records.

that they would understand policy.

Cases are reviewed to see

And if there is any question-

able case or a case that is going on appeal or dispute, if we hav

some issue involved, it would be reviewed. If we have any pro-

plems that occur in the office we'll. forward a report to.the

adjudicattonunit in Hartford for a decision.

Q Does your fact-finding supervisor ever overturn

Sih a,

Cecisions by the fact-finder?

b | A Yes

: !

5 f ® Is there any criteria or standard for that?

A Well, I think the main issue would be that there was

i some misunderstanding on the policy and he felt that the

H examiner was making the wrong decision.

| @ claimant found eligiodle. Are there ever times when the

il claimants, when a fact-finder determination would be overturnca

by the supervisor, on a finding of eligibility?

4 A You mean to make him ineligible?

| Q Yes

A ‘There may be an instance.

Q But it, it was your testimony previous that it's not

normaily the procedure to review all fact-finding determinntions.

| A It's imp@ssible.

i © Do you have any bi-lingual fact-finders in the

I Bridgeport office? :

A No. Do you mean that would speak other than 2172157:

' 2 Specifically, Spanish-speaking fact-finders?

A “I have one young man that's attending school nor

studying Spanish. I don't know if the others have are able to

SNE EEE NAN RC OER EN rane ens newer a cs ater

(Rm itay Reetean rere m mrt enusecimions mous

speak other lanzuages besides English and understand it.

O Is there any provision made that if a fact-findin-:

cetermination is required in a case for a person who does not

speak Enslish, that a translater will be provided by tne De-

partment?

A For Spanish-speaking people I have two employment

Security aides that. speak and understand Spanish, and they've

ij been used for translating.

" 9 However, they do not do the fact-finding themselves?

A They do not do the fact-finding. ‘They come into the

back field and they will translate, both to the claimant and to

)

1 tne fact-finder. I have one or two people, I believe, that can

speak some Italian. ‘men the issue arises they can heln. I j

myself can speak Ukranian. Well, not that fluently, I take it

dack. And sone Polish, but enouch to understand the individual |

or so that they can bring someone with them on their next visit

|| to help them in internreting. It has always been my policy, tne

|| policy of the Department, to try to assist these peonle when

| they come Into the office. Unfortunately, we cannot provice

i enouch interpreters for them, but we do try to make arrancements

for then if at gall vossible to bring someone with them. Some-

| Denefits too. They will assist you. Peonle are very cooncrativ

han~

then.

; in that manner, in tryins to help one another and we try to hein |

‘

>t aka gb

él

Sahat nitt eine Pe ee

-64a-

.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

a separation of employment, is that what you're referring to?

“Q Yes, excuse me. The redetermination hearing we're

talking.. The pre-termination hearing, not re-determination,

unless our terms are somewhat different. In a pre-termination

‘hearing, after a person has been found initially elisible, what

exactly is the oractice or procedure that is followed, and when

did this wie of hearing start?

A Are you referring now to separation, to refusals of

referral by the Employment Service?

Q Yes.

A That type of hearing?

Q Yes, and what other circumstances would necessitate

a pre-termination hearing?

SS ES A CS ES

A Well there are, if a claimant reports to the office ani

files a claim and is separated from employment for other than

lack of work and it's determined by the reason for separation,

that a hearing must be scheduled for the employers involvec.

a Ne at

(19)

-65a-

He is at that time notified and we have what we call a2 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

renort and the sevaration from employment be discussed at that

time. :

Q Do nre-determination hearings ever occur after a

person has been found eligible for benefits and has berun to

receive checks? ”

A If there, now lect me see if there is an instance.

I'm trying to think. Now if a claimant refuses a referrel by

the Employment Service, and it 4s 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 *o cone

in and the hearing notice explains what the situation is. That

there is a hearing scheduled for him and he reports at that timo

and we nave a hearing regarding the separation or the refusal of |

referral, I'm sorry.

Q O.K. Dealing with a specific issue of refusal to a

certain referral. Until such time as a pre-determination

hearing is rendered, is the man or woman still entitled to

collect benefits?

-66-

Dit bei hh el errr |

A Yes, I believe so. The, he is receiving his Senef.t:

We are notified by the Employment Service that he has refusec

a referral and we immediately notify him to renort for a

hearing by a five-day period. \

} 2 What form does this pre-detgrmination hearins tie,

Hb Rea aD Nine. apse rasan! Mothensihas

‘

li is it the same as a fact-finding? y |

A Yes, it's a fact-finding. It's a fact-findinzs inter-

\ view.

information, not present when the hearing is going on?

eT ae es

Say,

that he did report on this specific referral. And then if the

A Well there may be if the individual disputes the fnc%/

employer contact is made and it's determined that the fadtividual)

was, there and some error, we were notified that he fatled to

report, that would be your third party. If he was there and

the job wasn't suitadle for him then perhans the claim for

benefits are paid. But, that would be your third party.

Sometimes there may be a question ariSing where they nave to |

« , i

it contact the Employment Service interviewer tnat made the route |

| Slip. :

Q If there is a conflict between the statement of the

| claimant and the statement of the party that the claimant was

‘

I referred to, how does the person who hears the pre-detcermination

|| hearine, how do they render a judgment?

-67a- ¢

A Only on the facts that they have before them, to

Q But if for example, a man claims that he went to the

Dlace, the job that he was referred to, and that they told hin

that no jobs were available, later on a call comes in from that

| determine whether they can“@pprove or deny.

employment, that possible place of employment, stating that the

| man was never there. After an initial check, the man claims

that he went there but they didn't take his name cown and they

possibly forgot him. Is there any standard or guideline?

A Yes. Very often an individual, if he has been to this

place can describe some conversation or some individual that he

saw there and he's given benefit of the doubt on the basis that

he was there.

Q How long have these pre-determination hearing been

in effect?

A I don't remember exactly when we started using then.

Q Is it, are they fairly recent? Within the last two

years?

A For separations, I believe they've been, well since.

Do you know, Mr. Wasik? I'm sorry. I have to direct it to hin.

| Was it about June of 1970 that we went in for pre-determination

hearings on separations and then at a later date on the refusals

of a route slip from the Employment Service? The exact date I

can't tell you. I would almost say, I'm trying to think now.

[a]

-_——

-68a-

effect for, like ten or fifteen years?

A No, definitely not. No this all stems from Java.

O Alright. o.k. Thats..

A That's what you want?

Q What employees are eligible to handle nre-dctermina-

tion hearings?

A I don't understand.

Q Are there situations, as with the fact-findinc,

where the employment security aide would be able to do a ore-

determination hearing?

A An employment security aide?

Q Yes.

A There may be an ‘otlgee where they may do i%, tut

its doubtful. —

either of level one or two, would nrovably not do a ore-

determination hearing?

A ‘That's right.

Q Normally thén woule it be the practice that only an

employment security aide number three, one with exveriencc,

might be called upon to co a pore-determination hearinc?

iota BEARS ERIN IO gener, ——

16PF Lb Ihe Pe SP 2 age

Q In other words, normally an employment. security a‘ce

-69a-

A No, its.

Q Is it rather unlikely?

A it's unlikely, unless there is an extreme emermency.

But it's unlixcly.

O Is the level of exvertise anc knowledze reauircd for

a pre-determination hearing, higher than for a fact-findinz

determination?

A. Well, they have to be. JI would say so.

O That there is the necessity of a higher expertise

for that tyve of vre-determination hearing?

A Yes.

. % “rs. Smarz, is the manual that entitled Unemovrrens |

Compensation Rerulations used by the versonnel in your o“fice?

I'm referring to that vellow panerback pamphlet that was..

A Yes.

Q That is usec. Is that available to ail fact-Fincers

and redetermination, veople who handle redetermination hearincs, |

pre-determination hearings?

A Under the UC law they are avaiiabic.

«9 Does each fact-finder also have a cony of the

Interoretive Direst on court decisions?

&{ I have a master copy in the office “<hat's accessible

to everyone.

= 2 So there's only one copy in the office?

ld heh

-70a-

4A =6©I nave one copy.

% Do you all, does your office also have a copy of the

¢1a* 1s volicy letters?

\ 6Yes, fact-finders have conies also.

& The fact-finders each have individual copies?

h =6Yes, I believe they all have copies. We try to

ootain one for everyone.

Oo And tne two booklets that have both the unemploynent

commonsation laws, and the one, the vellow one, with tHe

Yezulations are also contained by, are also kent by the fact-

findins?

A They should each have one. I would say that.

DIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. CREANE

Q “Mrs. Smarz, you indicated that when you have 2 heavy

backlor of fact-findin~ decisions to make that you're forccu to

use persons in the office other fact-finders. Would those be

employment security aides, more exnerienced ones?

4 Do you mean employment security aides or do you mean

employment security interviewers?

Q Well, what is the distinction?

A An employment security interviewer is the title of.

The employment security aides are a grouv of veople that were

[as]

-7la-

appointed I believe, within the past two or three years anc they'}

CS Dl, 2, and 3. Wow employment security interviewers were

formally known as claims examiners and their titles were chanred

to employment security tonerviewers. Now there were also what

we had, intermittent claims examiners which were our part-tiime

people. .

tne question. Which of those versons, from wnich of those

grouns, would do, be oressed into fact-finding service if there

was a large backlog?

A Employment interviewers, some of the intermittents.

@ Would be intermittens claims? :

A Claims interviewers, with experience; rood exnericnees

the claims examining and possibly even:an employment security

aide, if necessary. But I can't recall ever needinc to use

then, although I have asked them if they were interested, thev

can do it. ‘

Q When a person who has been initially determincd

eligible and is receivins benefits foes into the office on, a

regularly scheduled bi-weekly appointment, when, they ~o, who

Go they show their UC-45 form to? Is it a claims' interviewer,

or an employment security aide?

- -72a-

A ZAther one who is operating tuat particular claim

line.

A Yes.

‘

Q Is it possible for a person to collect 26 weeks of

‘ ; benefits which is the maximum under law right now. Is 't

1 possible for him to receive 26 consecutive weeks without a

redetermination being made as to his eligibility, so lon¢ as

<* : : at none of his appointments was any question raised by an

4 employment security aide or the claims interviewer that would

—

require him beins referred for a fact-finding?

A Yes.

— Pe

of individuals who are collectinz benefits?

’ A io.

unemployment office during June, July and August of 1972

/ ‘

recéive a benefit rights interview?

A No, I couldn't say they did. Not every person, no

I, wouldn't sav that.

Q In fact, wasn't theré a memorandum sent to the officc

| manarers in October, indicating that, now that the rush was over

or the heaviest load of work during the summer, that it wah

exnected that everyone would now receive a benefit rignts: inter-

[2c] view? I'm referring, I can show you the memorandum, It savs,

jt "Memorandum To All UC Staff Members And Local Office Nanarers

é,

STEARNS OR na IE Mcngist Pernt ae teeters, are aeenteeien a

. MTP OBS LOL A Ebi Sip i + ”

i es

‘ xfs

ae aM Ian HI Nallee IR SER MIT Bs SPN Carne NT Lae 1

-73a-

dated October 5, 1972, signed by Mr. Hatcher. Do you recall

receiving that memorandum?

A I probably have it in my file.

Q So apparently when there is a heavy influx of new

claimants or very large list of continuing claimants, it's not

always assured that a person will get what you term the benefit

rights interview?

_ A That's right. It's impossible. We're not staffed

sufficiently to be able to handle all of that, to do it all.

Q tow many employees approximately did you say, are

employed there now?

A TI have, I think its 33 or 34, I'm trying to determine

because we lost one or two.

were six months ago, and a year ago? Whether there were more or

less?

- A Oh there were more. And I ti.‘nk we had a staff of

anywhere from 40 to 44, intermittents includea in that groun.

Do you neve any intermittents examiners now?

No intermittents working now.

They've all been laid-off?

- @2 2: =

Yes.

Ee he pay,

(39

-74a-

determination hearings, in any event, a fact-finding hearin= is

given when there is an issue of a person refusinr a referral bdy

the Employment Security Division?

A Yes.

Q Are there any other type of circumstances where tnis

type of hearing wou'd de given before the person's benefits

vere terminated?

A ‘Yell is they are seated for an interview and there is

some question that's coins to arise we ask them if they want to

Aave the interview then or if they want to, would like to ‘ave a

nearine scheduled. We zive them that option.

But if they choose to have.a later hearine, tirey woulc

not set...

A They. would schedule another nearine for then.

sorry, I didn't hear the ansvwer?

A Xo.

Q When a hearine is given involving a referral or sc fusai

of a 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, wict.er i

in fact ne had a valid reason for refusing it if indeec

he did refuse it. Are any

-75a-

“

of these issues ever involved on a, when a fact-findine= decision

is made that a person nad not used reasonable efforts to find

work, would any of these factual issues ever be present in that

type of cases?

A TI don't understand what you mean. Our issue at and

is the fact that he refused a referral.

an opportunity to have a hearing and to present evidence if he

ecnooses to defore the decision is made?

ave generaliy conducted the day that the person comes in to nic!

un their check. Isn't it true that in some of those cases,

there will be factual issues involved, such as whether or jot

od the man had in fact sone to several nlaces that he had listcs.

on the UC-&5 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 alwavs nocssibi

to reach the emvloyer. Isn't that correct?

on facts that he could confirm on the spot. What I am asin~ vou

- | te

Se ee Te EOL ect. Rete Manet aera r te on a

A AI,

es aaa et

PRC UN Lee SRN ERE Re LS

eb ebeA cis NSD

he Oe NBO nics

ER iacineln tS FM phy oF nin a

;

}

[301

-Toa-

is whether or not you see any significant difference between

factual issues that might be involved in the.reasonable effort

decision, as opvosed to factual Issues. thaé night be involved

in a refusal of referral bv the employment, service. In other

words why are hearings given before the person is terminated

on refusal of referral by Employment Service but not on reason-

able effort issues?

a 2 ean only say it's been procedure.

which ‘ir. Kelly went into, some of it, wnen he was questioning

you earlicr, I'd like to go into that in some more detail. ‘To

your knowledge is the statutory requirement of reasonable effort

snecifically defined in any denvartment written regulation or

policy letter?

A Ho, nov. You mean like a number, so many contacts is

considcred reasonable effort or what have you. No, not to my

xnowledze. - It's,each effort case is handled by its own in-

dividual merits.

2 You indicated that,what I'd like to ask you, you

| talk to your fact-finders, do you not, when you are training ther

before they begin their duties? Ps

A Yes.

(31)

-77a- -

Q And I assume you would have periodic meetinrs 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 sinzle

“standard that is used by the fact-finding examiners on decidins

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 a specific

standard, such as the person gets benefits if they have a reason-

able doubt that the person had not made sufficient efforts? Is

there any type of standard, a single, uniform standard tiat 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. Xo,

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 ‘he

Goubt would either stem from the fact that the individual coesn'¢

understand the circumstances or there is somereason why he >

hasn't looked for work, which may create an issue of availabilityl.

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, nc'd|

be given benefit of the doubt and paid benefits. It's so ~enera},

ihe

ag ash Mab onaeea Casali debe a Ml

ee es Te EE eT ee

meneame areas oe:

-78a- ~

It's difficult because evervthine is handled on,each cas&Q varies.

some cases, the identical set of facts presented to the nine

cifferent fact-finders who are emnloved richt now, that there

might very- well, on questionable cases, there micht very well

be a different decision reached by different fact-finders?

4 ‘mere misht be.

which I'll show vou in a moment, i believe the date of it is

1956, relating to the statutory requirement of reasonable efforts

to obtain work. I'1li show it to you and ask you if you are

familiar with it?

A I'm familiar with it. Every so often I take them

and re-read them and review them.

O For the record I'm referring to a "Disputed Claims

Policy Letter", with the identifying nunber SRU,A60H dircetcd

to all unemployment compensation manarers signed by Ceorre

Walker, Director. The date of the policy letter is October 22,

1356 and the policy letter attemnts, does it not, to define what

constitutes reasonable effort?

.A That's it's not a hard and fast rule, yes.

or factors that might influence whether or not the person iad

made reasonable effort and I'd like to go into that a littie hit,

[33]

-79a-

not just what's in the letter but what actually comes un in

your office as cases come in. Would one factor that would be

taker, into account by the fact-finding examiner to determine

wacther or not reasonable effort had been made, be whether or

not the serson had a car? :

A It might be, yes.

> Would a person who had a car be expected to so to

more places than a person who did not have a car? To conduct

amore far-ranging search for work?

A Perhaps a more far-ranging one.

@ Would a verson 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.

Q I'm sorry, are you saying that he should, but micht

not? Or that maybe he would and maybe he wouldn't?

4K That would be one of the factors but then, in addition

to that there would be other factors *hat would determine the

decision also.

Q What type of weight?

oes ge RA SESE IS EIN Se RE nA IRS RN RT Ae RIN i a shin a OANA REY Ha Se |

Rene oe re a re ey

Paria arare SOTTO See NE Cerca Se See

‘%

-80a-

A The tyve of work that the individual does would enter

into that. :

June, July and August of this summer? Would you descride it ao

many jobs available, or fewer than usual, or a very tisht labor

market with few jobs available?

A There were some jobs that were available.

labor market? Do you know what the unemployment rate wrt in

Bridcenort during June, July and Aurust?

A I would say that, oh, I'd have to check the statistical!

fierures. H

Q But did you, was that information nassed on to the

fact-finding examiners during each month? Are they informed

of what the unemployment rate is? j

A No.

They're not?

Not the percentare figure, no.

O In the policy claims letter referred to earlier cated

Detober 22, 1956, 1t states that it is not intended to reevire

claimants to make futile trins to employers' irine halls just

for the saxe of buildings up a record of job seeking when there :

are not many jobsavailable. Do your fact-finders taxe into

account the job market when they're making a determination as

to reasonable effort? :

a5”

-8la-

La)

A ‘SO @ certain extent.

. But they are not given the information on a recular

basis of wnat the economic indicators show for availability of

joos?

A “ell they may have a general idea, ir Giscussion, but

I don't actually sive them the information on a percentaze

basis, tne actual statistics.

O So that you're not sure to wheat ezvont they taxe char

inco account on their fact-findine decisions?

f (unintellizible)

Q Have you ever seen it described as one of tho factors

that influenced the decision of a fact-finder when he writes nis

fact-findinr report, as being the basis for his decision, or onc

of the factors?

ff Net shat I rieeckors

6 ‘Ir. Blair is employed in your office, is he not?

A Yes.

OO What 15 nies.

A Paet-fincer.

elTors to obtain work, £4 a nenarine which is an exhibit in this

ease, as bein= dasically a matter of jud7ment an the part of tune

ract-findin« examiner when he's maxing Gecisions on reasonable

efforts. Would vou concur with that Gescription?

A ib SBT ak at OA aah Bd Sg RTA

SURREAL Ain OE

SC REA AS

cS hae

Batiiteeh ia

—_—

A What was his descrivtion?

Q® 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 cof reasonable effort is that

the incividual is making efforts to obtaih, making efforts, so

that he may obtain employment from these efforts in the future.

And this is all taken into consideration. Now it would be on

the judement of the interviewer as to whether or not this is

actual reasonable effort.

Q Prom your experience what would you say would be the

average, if there is an averace length of time for a fact-findinr

interview on the issue of reasonable effort to obtain, to work?

Would it be 5 minutes, 10 minutes, 15 minutes?

A Well they vary. 15 minutes to a half-hour, sometimes

10 minutes.

9 Do you keen figures on the number of fact-finding

interviews that are conducted in your office on a daily, weekly,

or monthly basis?

A Yes.

Q Do you know how many were conducted durins the nea

period of claims during this summer? For example, do you know

approximately how many were conducted during June, July or

August?

37]

-83a-

A No. I could get those figures.

Q Would you make a note?

A You want them?

A Yes, Hartford. Statistics would have that in

Hart fcrd. Seite , s

MR. WASIK: You're talking about the

interviews?

THE DEPONENT:, Yes, they want the numver

of interviews, the fact-finding interviews held durin;

June, July and August, of 1972.

MR. CREANE: Not all of them, really. ‘c're

interested in the one that involves fact-findins inter-

views other than initial eligibility. We don't want the

fact-finding interviews or predetermination hearin on

separation. issues. >

THE DEPONENT: I think they have a oreaxkco:n

on that. I would have to check that.

BY “MR. CREANE:

QO. Do you know how many claims, initial and continuine

claims, were filed in your office last week or the-week bcfore

that, just approximately?

Kiba TARR GC TAM, me

NaF DSR Ra RUE RRA NL ioe ET

ike.

SSR RAR ENG rae ER A

Bis Rae aE

Pe ee ee

-84a-

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 Devartment of reasonabic

effort to obtain work, a statutory requirement for elicibility,

contained in this 1956 Policy Letter. I'11 read it to you and

ack you if that is senerally the standard that you try to annly

and to neve pour fact-finding exaniners apoly. In paracranh two

% states, "reasonable efforts to obtain work are such cffort as

we would ordinarily exnect anyone to make who is honestly loox-

ing for work".

A Yes.

Q That 1s a very difficult standard to annly, 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 say 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, sould

(39]

ne not. He'd have to know the man's baéksround, 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 xnow cuite 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 tie 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 mace to get that tyne of work would be my main concern.

® 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 dot to my knowledge.

Q 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 a fact-findine

examiner? 4

A That's true.

Q To your knowledge, what written standards, relating

to reasonable efforts to obtain work, what written standards or

policy letters are available to the fact-finding examiners in

your office other than this policy letter dated 1956?

See a) Sade a Le

oe Gee

aes

Sea 5 Stas wn OS

piteitlige AR tan REINA, ad AAs OTS

Scien iS

i Bia

ee ey ee ee

[He]

-86a-

To give them puidance in maxinrg their decisions?

A Why I'd have to check all my Policy Letters to «ic-

termine it, because I have a breakout on it. There's a recent

memorandum that came out over the signature of Carl Ziseman.

Q I can show you some recent Policy Letters and you

can tell me if there are any others, to your knowledee. ~'1)

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-45 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 a person went to all ‘n one day, the six places or

seven places?

A What I would be concerned about in that instance, an:

what ve would question, is what about the other nine workinz

days in the week, in the two-week period, and why dicn't they” |

maxe efforts during that period, because it misht- create an

issugnof availability. oe

Q Were claimants told that they had to have at least

six employers sign the card in order to be elisible?

A The employer isn't required to sign the card.

® To list six places of employment that they've vicitcc,

were they told that they had to?

OOP Tey »

vat

Bors

-87a-

A It 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 verson, person A, went to six places and

> oem <0 ee cee ee ong enema om

tsted them on his UC-45 form and made no other efforts ‘so obtatr

work; nerson 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. low woulc

a fact-finder arrive at a decision as to whether either or both

of those were eligible for benefit<7 ®

A We would just arrive it the reasonableness of the

situation in both cases.

Q The reasonableness being what the fact-finder feels

is reasonable?

4 That's right. In the particular instance. You're

talking about a man that lists four places and then he as’:

friends. Saythat this man is..

Q And he reads the newspaper everyday.

A And he reads the newspaper everyday and he has icici

qualifying skills and he knows that there may be a job onen !n 2 |

plant anc perhaps with asking friends he may get this vosition.

That's reasonable. Isn't that what you or I would do to odtain

a position.

-SSa-

Q But isn't it also quite likely that the nerson who

—

had listed six places on their UC-45 form would have rotten 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 nroverly

have given him his ope’ if no other question arose?

A It's possible.

four vlaces mi¢ht very well have been referred for a fact-rindine

interview since he had not filled out the forms completely?

| A It's vossible. But on the basis after being inter-

| viewed he was not denied benefits.

O Well, it is a hyvothetical that I'm giving you.

A You know this could happen. Well yes, I know, I |

understand that, but this does happen.

| |

| bs |

@ Is it vossidle that, of your nine fact-finding SHORE REMY:

| we'll say, seven would feel that the effort was reasonable, |

{

looking, reading the newspaper, and asking friends and that one

or two of the examiners might say, “Well, how do I know that he

really cid that? He didn't f111 out the form and I find that

he did not use reasonable effort". I-n't that possible?

A It's vossible, but I sure would question it.

Q But in all likelihood?

{42]

(431

FAL SORIA ars AE cont Ne

-S9a-

MR. TAMIS: John, can I-ask a cuestion?

» MR. CREANE: 0.K.

MR. TAMIS: Just a quick question.

DIRZCT EXAMINATION BY MR. TAMIS:

collect checks on a bi-weekly visit that thev have to vresent

the UC-5 form with at least six employers on it?

“IR. WASIK: She can't testify what the

understandine of a varticular claimant ts.

MR. TAMIS: Well that's a good voint. T'll

revhrase the question.

BY “18. TAMIS: .

ine to give checks when the UC-45 form has six employers listed

on it spread across the ten working days that are in issue?

A Yes, they vrobabiy will.

Q Alright, so we're starting from that supnosition.

BY _MR.. CREANC:

Q On the other hand, it's not automatic proof that

you've satisfied the reasonable effort simply because it's “llled

out. It does not automatically mean that you have to ret your

checks, does it? You indicated that there's no written nolicy on

-90a-

the number of employers that would be, that could be reouirce

that the person visit in order to get their checxs?

A No, there's no written policy on the number of

employers.

Q & in fact one claims examiner, I mean fact-fi.ncine

examiner, might feel that six places, spread evenly over ti0-

vee is a reasonable effort. Another fact-finding examiner

mirht feel that eight is a reesonable effort, or ten is a

reasonable effort, isn't that correct?

A Well I can't tell you what the fact-findinz, how

the fact-finding examiner fepis because I don't xnow all the

circumstances for this specific case that you're referrince vo.

‘nere's more involved in these situations other than Just the

fact that this man went out to look for a job. Or that he ind

listed six or ten or twelve places to ‘seek employment because

there's many other factors that are taken into considerat’on 2l-°

Q And the list of other factors that can be tairen into

consideration is listed nowhere in writing, isn't it correct?

A No I wouldn't say that. You have it in some of

your letters right there. 7

Q That indicates that at most, three factors will bce

taken into account: the age of the person wRQ is callee the

claimant; the type of work that he had done previously, rclatin~

Yla-

|ito the wares I

| third factor discussed in many of the memorandums that I've

of the jobs that are available; and I belicve,

|| from the department are that senior citizens will be piven

| Special consideration, persons over 66 will not be recuired

seen

jjmake a strenuous a work search because many vkaces simply con't

hire anyone aver 66 and they're not required to, isn't that

correct?

as the memorandum reads.

Q Yes, and would you indicate the other two factors

A What are you referring to? Efforts sO get emvoloymnent?

Q Yes, well you indicated in response to an earlicr

Question which was that there was an inexhaustable list of factors

“

}

which could influence the fact-fincing examiner when he made

|| determination as to whether a reasonable effort has beon macc.

— seem to contradict an earlier statement when you incicatcd

“ithas, in fact, the factors were spelled out in the memorancuns

and my point is that there are only three factors discussed in

|| the memorandum that you referred to.

A . . .

i| A. Alright, you have your age. You have: your skills,

the tyne of work. You have your memorandum on effort here in

your reasonableness. That‘ts what I was referring to.

‘

-Yla-

Q Well the reasonableness definition, voulén't vou

asree simoly is: reasonable is what the fact-findine ¢xamirer

determines to be reasonable under the circumstances?

A Under the circumstances.

Q So that there are man: other factors which can

influence whether or not the effort is found to be reasonable?

A Yes.

Q For example, you indicated that a verson who went

back to a place that they had annlied to at an carlter noint,

misht or mimnt not de unreasonable for them to do that, to re-

apply at factories that they had been to at an earlier dnc?

A If an employer indicated that there mav be ennlov-

ment if he returned there asain in two weeks, that he may irve

a jod for him, it would be reasonable for him to return there.

9 Would the size of the factory that the nersor ve >

dack to de a factor? In other vords, if & person went o7e:

ocriocically to a very large factory which was known to hive

periodically, that might be treated differently doy the fact-

Tincing examiner than revisiting a very small factory with a v

| low turnover of ezployees?

A 6It mieht de.

OQ And tiat there are no, that you really rely on tre

i mood fudement and gooc sense of your fact-findine examiners to

seer

47]

- 7 en o RY EM ae - 4 Fee ate

-Ya-

treat neonle fairly who come into the office ané to make fair

| ¢ecistons on fact-fincine decisions?

1 A Yes.

| MR. CREANE: Don, I have no further

questions at this time. Do you have any questions?

MR. WASIK: Just a couvle, maybe.

| cose eenseiearvon BY “IR. WASIX:

® During normal times, if there is such an animal,

‘rs. Smarz, is it a nolicy of the denartment to have periodic

interviews when people come in on interviews?

A Yes, in normal times.

O Yes, alrieht. So that, is it correct to say tat

Guring the vast year at least, with the unemployment situation

tne way it's been, that these periodic interviews have nots teen

‘

;neld, but that the interviews are only held when the interviccos

jon the line feels that there is an issue as to a person's

leltetoszity?

A That's riehs.

Q As to the cuestion of benefit rights interviows, will

12 Snenish-sveaking nerson or anyone who has atfficulty with co.

i} ~

wenwlish lancuare files 2 claim, is there anv special effor: om

lnolicy in rerard to giving these people benefit richts tnterviaw:4:

j7neak Svanish in the office and if there is an issue arises where

A As I spoke of the tyo younr ladics that I have wont

Biskietsiatimnainieooica:

-Yda-

( ts definite that the individual does not understand what is

|| trying to be explained to him, we do ask the interpreter to

| come and speak for them. As far as another individual is con-

| cernce, or other languages if it's at all possible and there's

|| Someone availadle that can help them, a claimant nerhaps, we vould

use that ind .vidual or we would ask them to bring someone to

helo them.

jwnether its a department employee or a friend brought dy the

A If we're giving a benefit ripats interview, yes. It

would be explained to the interpreter to explain it to the tn-

dividual.

‘interview to such a verson havine difficult understandine the

O Yes. I understood your earlier testimony tha’ ther

jwas, at least some period when not everyone received a benefit

\Ipiehts inverview?

I A During the crush period. They asked during Junc,

July, wasn't that your question. At the time, did everyone ret a

jpenefit right interview? They couldn't.

i [48] | | | _}

149]

-YSa-

Q How about the people who had difficulty with the

English language. Were they given a benefit r&rhts intervicr?

A And there was a question of eligibility or availabil-

ity, we tried to give them to them, yes.

Q In other words, if a person came in with a UC-!5

properly filled out, even though that person mignt not fully

understand English, if there was no question in the intervicuwer's

mind, that person would be paid?

A Right.

a full benefit rights interview?

A That's right...

Q But if an issue of eligibility arose would that

person be given such an interview?

* We would try to explain the eligibility recuirements

to them, yes.

Q Now I thought I understood you to say that when a

person is given an option of having a hearing that day or come

back a week later, that if he decided to come back at a later

time, that he would not be given his check, at that time. ts

that correct?

A I'm trying to think. They are to be paid their

benefits at that time. We have very few of these instances, that

yee

—

Bevvsreneieiae ones ians [mm

-96a -

why it makes it so difficult. They usually will have the hearin-~

while they're there. If someone has created the problem in the

past of not having the hearing or is collecting or is electinr

| to have the hearing at a future date, then we vav them their

I penerits. Then they nave the hearing later.

Q So they are paid?

A I know what you're talking about. You're referrinre

I have so few of them that actually occur.

MR. CREANE: I think we might have, there

might be a misunderstanding here. I just want to make

sure that we're talking about the same situation. When

you talked about a person being paid, pending a hearin-,

you're talking about a refusal of a referral, that tyne

of an issue, are you not? A refusal of the job offered

| by the Employment Service?

THE DEPONENT: Yes. They vould be vaid their

benefits, right. And then if an issue occured whcre we

are going to deny the benefits when it would have be,

constitute an overpayment. You f-llow? Do you under-

' stand what I mean?

MR. CREANE: Do you mind if I ask questions

to try to clarify? (Directed to Mr. Wasik).

ecleant Pt Ne 2, Ae Nasa CMEC EE

to the question that arose isere. They would be paid their checks).

SOL Ea IPE PE 6 PO LEY BE ADIA CE AEE te lg Oh MCLELLAN ELN A ae 1 >

-97a-

BY AR. CRATE:

examiner because of a quest‘on of lack of reasonable effort, do

your fact-finding examiners, is there a written policy, do they

always tell the claimant, “you can have your hearing in a week

or now ever long it will take you to get your witnesses tozetiier

and you'il get your checks today, anyway, until you get the hearin??"

You're not saying that those checks will be paid that day, are you

tuat a person can choose to have the hearing a week or two weeks

f Well he can't choose to have it a week or two weeks

later, because the hearing would be scheduled five days hence

or what have you. I mean as far as that's concerned we would

schedule a hearing for him. ;

son will get their two checks for the period?

A If they, let me put it this way. If it's a ouestion

that I want to go home this afternoon and I can brir¢- this

information back to you, we'd let him go home and bring the in-

formation back or he's coming back the next day, we would brins

it back, he would bring it back the next day. So you would nold

vayments for that period of time until he brought back the in-

formation. How you have an issue of a hearing that's beins

scheduled and I think that's what your referrinz to.

[st

- ELS 6 BL AOA LDS AEA ETO

-9Ra-

A Well sometimes an individual will sit down and

they're advised that if they want you can interview them now on

the issue or vou can interview them at a later time. If he

wants 2 hearine, if he wants a scheduled hearinn, as a rulc,

tnev will hav2> it then. If an issue arises where they want to

have it five days hence, ‘ou would pay them and schedule then

? for a hearine. If an issue comes up where they are zoin= to be

denied benefits on the period, it would be an overpayment.

Now the, this, how can < savy. This rarely napvens.

Q Which rarely hiznpens?

& To have a hearing scheduled once thev, you know,

decide that they, once they are seated and they are bein= in- ,

% terviewed. But if it does hannen we schedule a hearine for tic:

QO Under what circumstances would the Denartment be

authorized to nay those checks when there is a question of their

actual entitlement to those benefits? When would the verson

eet the checks and get their hearing later on?’ “his is an

important question.

i ! 4 They want payment. .

A If he wants his payment of benefits.

Q In other words, if a verson comes in on reasonable

lerrort to obtain work and he has no sisnature or two sicnatures

listed on the card, he has an option of retting his checks that

eT rine ere ee er on cee at

[52]

ae PLD LLDCS ALPE AS AOE DCN LIE GA CAL 0 OB be VPM Pate Be

[53]

-994-

cay and rettine a hearing later on? That those checks will be

paid even thouch the--

4A I can't remember an incident occurring on effort,

let me put it to vou that wav. Dut if it would occur accordir-

70 Procedure, he would be paid and then he would be interviewed

ane if an overpayment would be set-up, if he would be determined

that he was tnelirible for benefits.

snecific nolicy that would authorize the Department fo @o 212%?

A I don't know. I can't. Is there one onjthat, ‘r.

Wasik? °

“R. WASIK: There night have uden weit, T

don't want to testify.

MR. CREANE: Well perhaps we can list that

as ‘another--

THO DEPONENT: I'm trying to think of where

that--

"R. WASIK: That's my understandine of what

the policy is sunnosed to be.

BY ard os oa, babar 1

bi eee Wee insccteas 0

the past vear, has any verson wno has been referred to u fact-

-100a-

finding examiner on the issue of reasonable effort to obtain

work, received his checks that afternoon and had a hearing

scheduled at a later date to determine whether he was actually

entitled to those checks?

A -I honestly can't remember.

Q You can't remember an instance?

A I can remember an instance on reasonable effort, in

all honesty.

Q Do your fact-finding examiners inform versons of their

right to postpone the hearing and that they will get their checks

in the meantime until the issue is settled?

A They do inform them. I can't say that they always

have on every case. I wouldn't say that.

Q Do you have any explanation as to why apnarently so

few or maybe no claimants choose to receive their checks that

{afternoon if they can have the hearing at a later date, if in

fact your fact-finding examiners are informing them of that

choice?

A No, I can't think of any.

| Q So in virtually all, perhaps all, instances of

reasonable efforts issues that go before fact-finding examiners,

the hearing is held that day and a decision is made that day on

eligibility or non-eligibdility?

[54] |

RS AOE Fa ANS ANE Pea Gt oo AR aS den OO ek a

-10la-

A Yes. Just about all instances, yes.

MR. CREANE: I want to ask Mr. Wasik, if

after checking with your clients in the devoartmoent,

you can find any written regulations which cauthnorizes

vayment to claimants, that entitles them to postnone

the fact-finding hearing and to receive their benefits,

I would like to see a cony of that.

MR. WASIK: You don't have it in the letters |!

that we've given you already?

MR. CREANE: No. I'm sorry, Don, I

indeerupted you. Do you want to finish your questions.

SY MR. WASIK:

Q Is it a clear statement that in reasqnable effort

cases as opposed to refusal of a job referral, that there sclido-

are factual issues that have to be resolved with the help of i

a thire person? \

MR. CREANE: I would object to the form of

that question. I think to ask her to define seldom is tor

vague a word.

WBY MR. WASIKX: '

Q The usual, what's the usual case? Is there a factual |

issue in the usual reasonable effort case?

[As]

SEF AP ERIE INNE PELL IED BO Ta i A OO AL RI RE ORS SO AEN RR ALR ED

ee ere WY Ue Od oe aS

[sé]

-102a-

A Where a third person might be involved? You mean

|| there? °

Q Something like that.

A There are instances where we do it, yes.

Q But is it a general rule, or not the feneral rule?

A How can I answer tha‘? It iepends on the indivicual.

Sased on your exverience?

A Based on exverience, yes. And it would be on the

individual case. If there is some doubt in an examiner's m'rd

to resolve an issue they may use that to verify it.

might hanonen. If this is the usual case or that the usual cases

llare that there is no question?

f A The usual case.

i} MR. CREANE: I have an objection to th*3 onc.

| I think she indicated that she couldn't really ansver

{

| that question. That she really couldn't eive a fair

i answer to it.

|REDIRECT BY MR. CREANE:

jperticusarly Svanish-speaking claimants, whose resnonsibdbility is

[57]

-103a-

this to provide an intervreter? Is it the claimant's resnon-

sibility or the Denartment's resnonsibility?

A That's hard to say. I've never really thourht of it

that way. If we can assist the individual in any way, we would

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

resnonsibility 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

jiarer thought of’ that. If its possible and we can resolve, we

can present them with someone to assist them we try to resolve

the tissue. If we have someone that can do the intervretine in

the office, or assist it and he's in the processing of the claim,

we do it. If we can't do it we nut the burden of resnonsibdilityv

on the individual to present someone who can interpret for him.

Very often the examiner on the line, if he sees that there is a

language barrier, will ask them to bring someone in to the office

Q What you're saying I believe, correct me if I'm wron-,

is that the Department will be as heloful as its resources will

nermit, but that ultimately it's the claimant's responsibility to

have someone there present, so that he will understand what is

beinm said to him and so that he can present his facts to the

Department?

A If we can help them we can.

to bring someone, yes.

If we can't, we ask him

{

pee Nia NA Laat e1

aueenems akg sen TES et MSY 2S ORE eb NO ST Taey

-104a-

Q And that if you can't heln him and he doesn't brine !

anyone, in your opinion, its his responsibility and you've done

all you can?

A What else can we do?

QO Well if you ask my opinion you could have Burs Ores

Snanish-speaking versonnel so that the Spanish-speakinre claimants

have the same access to the government services.

A I don't have a problem with Spanish-speakine personne’

as far’as that's concerned because as I said I have two youn

ladies that do sveak fluent Spanish and they're very soo) 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 sveak the

language. You will get different dialects that are difficult

to understand and it's almost ‘imvossible to provide you with an

pte ee ss

interpreter for ali of these.

Q Do you have any idea of the apvroximately the rer-

centace of your claimants that are Spanish-speaking?

No I don't.

Q You couldn't hazard a rough guess?

A No.

The two Spanish-speaking, employees that you have, Tt !

[57]

-10Sa-

occasionally are they not? There isn't always someone there on

4A No.

REDIRECT EXAMINATION BY MR. KELLY:

7 ail times is there.

O I just wanted to ask, you mentioned that you hid core

li employees who were working while they were soins to school. Are

| the two Snanish-speaking employees full-time emplovees, or are

| they working onlv on a vart-time basis?

A Full-time basis.

® Full-time employees. How long have they been iith

the Bridreport office.

A They started I think in December of 1971 and: January

jes 1972, I think both of them came in.

emmloyees in the bridceeport office?

A I became manazer in December of 1971, so J can't.

! 9 Did you work in that office before?

«\ Years aro.

9 O.K. But in that period, say from December of Syl,

bacx five years ago, vou have no knowledre of what the enovioynent

situation was?

{

-_ SO PREM NRE re MTN Aen anime.

-106a-

A No I haven't. It wouldn't be, it was very vaczuc.

I wouldn't know of the staffing pattern.

Q What is the employment, what is their job title,

| these two Svanish-spveaking employees?

A Employment security aides.

| Q Level?

j A Yes, I think they're two.

| Q Two. Both of them are level two?

A I thinx so.

Q And that they wouldn't be involved in fact-findinr

determinations?

A No. |

Q I have no further questions.

| BY “MR. CREANE:

i Q Just one final question. The fact-finding examiners

when they're hired, what type of trainine or experience arc ticy

miven before they begin their actual duties?

| A Well, it varies. There -is a certain amount of train-

| ing that I, as a manarer, would give them.

| O 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 Dizest, the laws, the fact-finding forms. Brief basic

[én

outlines as to what they would need to compile into a resort.

Discussions on the various tynes of fact-findines that may arise.

Tnev're told about tne inserts, I acquire some books for t*cm on

interviewinn. They start with some of the simpler cases, sort

of an on the job trainine. Their cases are revievied by the sunert.

visor and co through a six-month vrobationary veriod and any

unusual cases that arise are discussed. They're alwavs frce to

ask any questions that may arise, to check anvthine that vc have

available in the office. If anythine unusual comes un, it's

referred to the adjudication unit in Hartford.

Q Of the nine fact-finding examiners that are oresentiv

working there, tow many have come to work in your office curvin-

the past year? How rany of them were working there a year 270?

A I think 111 but one. They weren't all workin-~ in

the capacity of fact. finders. They were promoted. One enre fro:

another cffise up state. She was promoted and civen the annotrnt-

ment in the Bridgeport office. ‘ne other..

If you don't know, don't answer.

A I'd say four or five.

Q Out of a total of how many fact-finders a vear a-o?

A ,Actual fact-finders, were two. There was anot..cr

title for a groun that were brought in and they were broucnt in

to train for fact-finding. I can't think of the title ovf-hand.

‘

yatabseuddy

% 2

‘

[63]

SRAM EE SAID ES LE LE RA AINE AG

-108a-

MR. KELLY: Excuse me, were they called the

intermittent ciaims examiner?

Tic DEPONENT: Oh, no. I'll get that nane

for you if vou'd like because I know that they hac a

different title for that. But then they were annointed,

they took the exam and were appointed as fact-finders.

‘ney worked in the capacity of fact-finders.

SY AR. CRIANE:

You indicated in resnonse to a question from “Vir.

Wasik that in normal times, whatever they mizht be, that it is

the practice to give periodic redeterminations?

A Periodic interviews, yes.

O And what is the, how does that work?

A Well, initially--

Q By the way, are we in normal times now at the Brid-ec-

port office? Are neriodic redeterminations given on rerularlvy

seneduled basis?

A Not quite. The claimant is given a benefit ririts

interview and all the eligibility reouirements are explained to

them. Then they file their first compensable claim.

% And when the workload is not?

A When the workload is normal, we are oneratinz normally

their elisibility requirements are all explained and durinz

we may code him or her every six or eight weeks denendinzy om what

-109a-

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 coced

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

seekint work. She was laid off, or she quit her job because she |

has a problem, a babysitting problem, what have you. She ouit

her job, she's now avatiabie for work and she's looking, for wor':.

She meets the eligibility requirement at this time and we would

probably-re-code her for an interview every fourth week.

Q So that the re-coding for a periodic reintervic::--

A She would be re-coded.

Q Would be if there was some special circumstances?

A Special circumstances that may be involved.

Q But it doesn't mean that everyone would be coded

for a neriodic interview?

A Every fourth week, no. And then an older person who

4s available for work and making, efforts to get work, seeking wor":

the circumstances are.

ce RE ae

Gd DRS TRE RN

“ere

pisret asa

(64)

-110a-

/ 10a

Oo That answers my question.

A It would be sect in that

This text is long and has been trimmed here. Open the source document for the complete record.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.