Opinion
HHDCV175043864S
01-15-2019
TOWN OF AVON v. UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION ACT ADMINISTRATOR et al.
UNPUBLISHED OPINION
OPINION
Budzik, J.
The court grants defendant Administrator of the Unemployment Compensation Act’s (Administrator) motion for judgment for the following reasons.
Plaintiff Town of Avon (Avon) claims that the Employment Security Board of Review (Board) erred when it failed to consider claimant Lisa Perkis’ affirmative denials of allegedly improper conduct while Ms. Perkis was an Avon police officer. See Pl.’s Opp. to Mot. for Judgment, at 1, 11. Avon claims that the Board only considered Ms. Perkis’ claimed inability to recall certain allegedly improper events, rather than times when Ms. Perkis could recall the events at issue and, in Avon’s view, dishonestly claimed the events did not occur. See id. at 3-4. As more fully set forth below, the court concludes that the decisions by the appeals referee and the Board sufficiently demonstrate that both entities considered the fact that Ms. Perkis denied certain allegedly improper events.
LEGAL STANDARD
The function of the court is hearing an appeal from the Board is to sit as an appellate court in reviewing the record certified by the board of review. The court does not retry the facts or hear evidence. United Parcel Service, Inc. v. Administrator, 209 Conn. 381, 385, 551 A.2d 724 (1988). "In appeals under General Statutes § 31-249b, the Superior Court does not retry the facts or hear evidence, but rather sits as an appellate court to review only the record certified and filed by the board of review ... The court is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable factual conclusions." Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. 317, 321-22, 439 A.2d 1008 (1981) (citations omitted). It is not the function of the court "to adjudicate questions of fact. Nor may it substitute its own conclusions for those of the [Board]." Guevara v. Administrator, 172 Conn. 492, 495, 374 A.2d 1101 (1977).
"Judicial review of the conclusion of law reached administratively is also limited. The court’s ultimate duty is only to decide whether, in light of the evidence, the board of review has acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally, or in abuse of its discretion." Burnham v. Administrator, 184 Conn. at 322 (1981) (citations omitted). "[R]eview of an administrative agency decision requires a court to determine whether there is substantial evidence in the administrative record to support the agency’s findings of basic fact and whether the conclusions drawn from those facts are reasonable ... Neither this court nor the trial court may retry the case or substitute its own judgment for that of the administrative agency on the weight of the evidence or questions of fact ... Our ultimate duty is to determine, in view of all of the evidence, whether the agency, in issuing its order, acted unreasonably, arbitrarily, illegally or in abuse of its discretion." JSF Promotions, Inc. v. Administrator, 265 Conn. 413, 417, 828 A.2d 609 (2003) (citation omitted).
ANALYSIS
The appeals referee found that Ms. Perkis was questioned by Avon on July 13, 2015 about various cases and incidents in 2012 and 2015. "The employer questioned the claimant about various incidents that took place between 2012 and 2015. The claimant was able to recall some incidents; however there were several incidents that the claimant did not have a clear recollection." Referee Dec. at 4 (emphasis added). In reviewing the referee’s decision, the Board added the following sentence to the Referee’s findings of fact, "[t]he employer also disbelieved the claimant’s denial of certain allegations made of co-workers." Board Dec. at 2 (emphasis added). The Board also stated that "[a]lthough the employer maintains that the claimant was dishonest in denying her former coworkers’ allegations regarding various incidents during her last four years of employment, the employer failed to present first-hand testimony from any of the individuals who made these allegations other than Marica Williams, dispatcher, who could not recall when the claimant had allegedly made a comment about a television news story and did not report the incident at the time it occurred." Id. The Board ultimately concluded that "there was nothing in the record that would cause the board to overturn the referee’s credibility determination in favor of the claimant, who credibly testified that she truthfully denied certain allegations and that she did not recall other incidents when questioned by the employer." Id. (Emphasis added.) The above excerpts from the underlying decisions are sufficient for the court to conclude that the referee and the Board did not overlook the fact that Ms. Perkis affirmatively denied certain of the events Avon alleges constituted improper conduct by Ms. Perkis.
The court does not hear this case de novo . The court is bound by the referee’s factual determinations which naturally may turn on the referee’s determinations of witness credibility. The referee chose to credit the testimony of Ms. Perkis and discount the testimony of Avon’s witnesses. That is the right and role of any fact finder.
Because the excerpts cited above are sufficient to convince the court that the referee and the Board considered the fact that Ms. Perkis affirmatively denied certain of Avon’s allegations, the court does not find that the Board’s decision was unreasonable, arbitrary, illegal or an abuse of discretion.
Plaintiff’s appeal is dismissed and judgment shall enter in favor of the defendant, Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act.