Whether DUI/OVI cases, unemployment appeals, or criminal cases, Smith's Law Offices' record shows a steady flow of successes for our clients.
Please keep in mind that the success of any legal matter depends on the unique circumstances of each case and we cannot guarantee particular results for future clients based on successes we have achieved in past legal matters.
Our client had a clean work record when the employer told him they were ending his employment because things, "were not working out." When he applied for unemployment, they denied his benefits claiming he quit without just cause. Through a hearing, we showed that he was terminated and the termination was without just cause. As a result, his unemployment compensation was approved with a backpayment.
Our client had discussions with two employers while receiving unemployment compensation. ODJFS determined that he was denied benefits for turning down offers of suitable employment. We showed the hearing officer that the first job offer was for a job out of his field and at $10 less per hour than he had previously been receiving, and therefore was not an offer of suitable employment. We also showed the Hearing Officer that the discussions with the second job never led to an actual offer of employment. Therefore, his benefits were approved.
Our client was denied unemployment benefits in Ohio essentially because most of her income was from another state. We showed unemployment the amount of the income and verified her eligibility with the hearing officer. As a result, her benefits were approved.
Our client was denied unemployment compensation due to an allegation that she turned down an offer of suitable work. However, during the Hearing we showed that she never received an offer. She had some discussions with an potential employer about a potential position, but they never actually extended an offer. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.
Our client was terminated due to a general dissatisfaction with her work, according to the employer. However, through a hearing we showed that the large majority of the employer's concerns were due to reasons outside of the claimant's control. As a result, we won the hearing and benefits were approved.
Our client was charged with a third-in-ten OVI, which carries with it for a refusal case 60 days of jail, forfeiture of the vehicle, mandatory license suspension and high fines. However, by raising evidentiary issues regarding proof of his operating a vehicle and taking other proactive steps, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading to a non-moving citation instead.
Our client was charged with a violation of Revised Code 4549.02, a hit and skip statute, after an accident involving a fire hydrant and bushes. That statute, however, applies only to accidents on the road. Because it carries with it 4 points, a mandatory license suspension and the possibility of up to 6 months in jail, he chose to hire use to help protect himself. We addressed the issue that he was charged under the wrong statute through extensive negotiations and legal briefs. On the day of trial, we prevailed with our arguments and our client escaped this ordeal with a fine of $350, but no license suspension, no jail time and no probation.
Through extensive negotiations, we were able to obtain a dismissal of OVI charges against our client.
Despite having an over-the-limit test, we succeeded it getting OVI charges against our client dismissed on the first court date.
Our client was cited for an OVI when he tested over the legal limit during a traffic stop. Through extensive preparation and negotiations, we reached an agreement with the prosecutor to dismiss the OVI charges with a plea to a non-moving citation instead, which saved our client for a year-long license suspension, points to his license and the implications of an OVI conviction on future job opportunities.
Our client was absent from work due to a bona fide medical issue. The employer terminated her and unemployment denied her benefits, concluding that the employer had just cause to terminate based on the absences. We argued that fault is an essential element to prove just cause for a termination and an employee is not at fault when they have to be absent for a bona fide medical reason. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for benefits, eliminating a large overpayment, and approving a backpayment of benefits.
To qualify for unemployment benefits, a person must be able to work during their weekly claims. Our client needed to resign from his job because he was not able to work that job, but he was able to work other less demanding jobs. Unemployment denied his benefits; however. Through a hearing, we showed that he was able to work and eligible, and the Hearing Officer agreed.
A bus driver at a local union we represent was placed on a suspension, and what is essentially a last chance agreement, when a pedestrian initiated a physical altercation with him. After being attacked, the driver let loose his frustration verbally - explaining how upset he was. We represented the union through an arbitration and persuaded the hearing officer that, while some of what the driver said was not appropriate, the discipline was overkill. The arbitrator agreed and sustained the grievance.
Our clients turned down an offer to return to work due to having high risk conditions for COVID, including being over age 65. Governor Dewine issued an executive order protecting people such as my clients, but that did not stop ODJFS from issuing a denial and demanding a large overpayment. We prevailed, however, showing that they were eligible for benefits. As a result the overpayments were eliminated and they were both issued a large backpayment instead.
Our client raised concerns about his hours with his boss, only to have his boss tell him to go home. When our client returned to work, he was told that they believed he resigned. He explained that he did not resign and never told anyone he resigned, but the employer would not let him work. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that this was a termination without just cause and approved his unemployment benefits.
Our client was charged with an OVI after being involved in an auto accident on slushy roads and testing over the legal limit. We raised arguments, pointing out that many clues of impairment were missing. As a result, an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges.
After extensive preparation and negotiations in this case, on the morning of the trial, an agreement was reached from the State to dismiss the OVI charges against our client with him agreeing to plead to a non-moving citation instead.
Our client was was targeted with false allegations and discipline. After continued failed attempts to resolve the issues with his employer, and with concerns about the impact of discipline on a certification he was required to carry, he resigned. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the hearing officer that he had just cause to do so and as a result his unemployment benefits were approved.
Our client was charged as the result of driving under an administrative license from an OVI charge. Such a driving under an OVI suspension carries with it mandatory jail time, an additional license suspension and high fines. We showed the court that there were problems with the citation that was issued and argued that he should not have been placed under the license suspension to begin with. As a result, the prosecutor offered to dismiss the OVI charge and have our client agree to a minor misdemeanor charge with only at $100.00 fine. Our client and agreed and the case was resolved in his favor.
To qualify for unemployment benefits, a claimant must be able and available for work. Our client was denied because ODJFS concluded he did not make himself available for work. By representing him through a telephone hearing, we showed that he was available and eligible for benefits. The Hearing Officer agreed and awarded him benefits.
Despite the fact that the police obtained a breath test showing our client over the legal limit, though negotiations an agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading instead to a non-moving citation.
Out client was subject to a two-week quarantine. ODJFS determined that she was not only unable to work during those two weeks, and therefore ineligible for unemployment compensation, but also for all weeks thereafter. Through a telephone hearing we persuaded the hearing officer that our client was able to work after the quarantine and eligible for benefits. The hearing officer agreed and awarded benefits.
Our client was initially approved for PUA benefits with a weekly benefit amount of $440 per week. Many months later he received a determination notice stating that he owed a large overpayment because they recalculated his weekly benefit amount to be only $189 per week. Through appeals and a telephone hearing we prevailed, showing that the "corrected determination" did not include all of his income when calculating his weekly benefit amount. As a result, a large overpayment was avoided.
Our client was denied unemployment benefits after suffering an injury because ODJFS claimed he was not able to work and therefore not eligible. We showed the hearing officer that the injury was only temporary and that he was able to work during his claims. As a result, his unemployment benefits were approved with a backpayment.
To qualify for unemployment, a person must be able and available to work. Our client experienced a medical issue while collecting unemployment that required a brief stay at a hospital. ODJFS not only denied her for the week she was in the hospital, but for all weeks after. Through a hearing, we showed that she was only unable to work one week and was entitled to benefits for all weeks after. As a result, an overpayment was removed and a backpayment was issued.
Our client applied for unemployment when she was separated from her employment. Two weeks after, she received a final paycheck from the employer. Nine (9) months later, ODJFS issued a determination denying benefits because she, "was not unemployed at the time of filing . . ." Through a telephone hearing, we showed that she was unemployed despite the final paycheck. While the paycheck was deductible income for the weeks in which she received it, she was entitled to benefits for all weeks thereafter. As a result, she was approved for unemployment compensation, the overpayment was eliminated, and she was eligible for a backpayment.
ODJFS claimed that our clielnt was not eligible for PUA benefits and demanded he repay nearing $10,000.00 in benefits. We representd him through a telephone hearing and demonstrated that he was eligible for benefits. As a result, the overpayment was eliminated and he was approved for a backpayment.
At a union we represent, one of the classifications primarily worked third shift. Only one or two of the positions worked a day shift, and as a result the employees had to work for many years to gain enough seniority to work days. The employer, however, chose to replace a full-time day position with a part-timer, moving an employee with more than 20 years of seniority back to days. We proceeded to arbitration with the employer arguing they had a right to do so because the contract provided them the, "right to direct the workforce." We showed the arbitrator that this right was limited by other provisions of the CBA, including limitations on replacing full-timers with part-timers. As a result, the arbitrator sustained the grievance and ordered the employer to undue the change - allowing the full-timer to return to his day position.
To qualify for unemployment, a person must be able and available to work. Our client had to quarantine due to COVID while receiving unemployment and ODJFS not only denied benefits for the weeks of the quarantine, but also for all weeks after. During a hearing, we showed that he was able to work after the quarantine and the hearing officer agreed - eliminating the overpayment and approving him for benefits.
To qualify for unemployment benefits, a person must be able and available for work. Our client was pregnant during her unemployment claims and gave birth. ODJFS denied her benefits, claiming she was unable to work during the pregnancy after after giving birth. We showed a hearing officer, however, that while there was a very limited time at the time of the birth that she could not work, she was able to work during the pregnancy and shortly after the birth. As a result, the denial of benefits was removed.
Our client was charged with a second-in-ten OVI as well as two first-degree misdemeanor drug possession charges and a drug paraphernalia charge after a police officer initiated a traffic stop due to an alleged marked lanes violation. After receiving discovery, reviewing video of the traffic stop and completing suppression motions, an agreement was reached to dismiss all of these charges in exchange for a plea to a fourth-degree misdemeanor reckless op charge. Our client was pleased to accept this offer to ensure they were protected from mandatory jail time, a mandatory license suspension, high fines and the potential of six months in jail.
Our client worked primarily on commission. His employer removed is biggest client, which was predicted to cause a loss of 50 to 70% of his pay. He resigned, but was initially denied unemployment. We fought for his benefits and won. Even though the employer argued the they removed his client as a form of discipline, the Hearing Officer agreed with us that the employer lacked just cause to do so because it had provided no prior discipline or warnings about work performance. As a result, benefits were approved.
Employees of schools who typically have the summers off do not received unemployment compensation through the summers based on their school employment if they have a reasonable assurance of employment in fall. They may qualify through the summers based on other employment, if the employer does not follow required steps to give a reasonable assurance, or if their will be significant changes to the type of work or rate of pay. In this case, the employer did not follow the required steps to provide a reasonable assurance and, as a result, our client was approved for benefits.
To receive unemployment benefits, claimants must be able and available for work each week that they file claims. ODJFS determined that our client was unavailable for for work and retroactively denied him, stopping his benefits and claiming he owed a large overpayment. We prevailed at the hearing; however, showing the hearing officer that our client was available for work at all relevant times. As a result, he did not owe an overpayment, but rather ODJFS owed him a backpayment.
To qualify for unemployment benefits, a claimant must be available and able to work each week. Our client's claims were rejected because ODJFS determined that he was unable to work. By working with our client to obtain medical documentation and prepare for a hearing, we persuaded a Hearing Officer that he was able to work. As a result, his benefits were approved with a backpayment.
Our client was charged with a hit and skip after he was involved in a single-vehicle accident. In addition to high fines and jail time, the charges brought with them the possibility of a license suspension. Through negotiations with the prosecutor; however, we were able to show that our client was not guilty of the charge. As a result, the charge was dismissed.
Our client was receiving unemployment when he had a medical procedure completed. One of the requirements for receiving unemployment is that a person must be able to work. ODJFS denied our client benefits for all claims after the medical procedure; however, we prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that our client was only able to work for the one week that they had the procedure. As a result, all benefits after that one week were approved with a backpayment for our client.
Our client was charged with telephone communications harassments. The contact was friendly, was not repetitive, and was non-harassing, we argued to the prosecutor. They agreed to dismiss the charges.
While receiving unemployment, our client became unavailable to work one week due to the need to care for a child. ODJFS denied her for not only that one week, but for all following weeks. Through a telephone hearing, we persuaded the Hearing Officer that that our client was eligible for benefits for all other weeks and as result her overpayment was eliminated and her benefits were approved.
Our client tested positive for COVID and was required to quarantine until she tested negative. In the meantime, the employer terminated her employment. Her claim for unemployment was initially denied, with ODJFS concluding she quit her employment without just cause. However, through a hearing we were able to persuade the Hearing Officer that this was a termination without just cause. As a result, our client was approved for benefits with a backpayment.
Our client was receiving unemployment benefits when he obtained a temporary one day job. However, instead of reopening his claim the following week when he did not have any more income, he simply filed another weeks claim as most people seem to do. He was denied for not reopening his claim and provided a sufficient reason for not having any more income. Through the appeal process, we showed that this was a temporary job and as a result he was approved for unemployment with his overpayment eliminated.
Our client was laid off from work, called back for a week, and then laid off again. The employer attempted to get her unemployment benefits denied by claiming she was on a voluntary leave. Through a telephone hearing, we conveyed that the employer was dishonest and as a result unemployment benefits were approved.
Our client received multiple charges including an OVI, child endangerment and driving under an OVI suspension. After raising issues about the State's failure to preserve all video and evidentiary issues - including about who was operating the vehicle - an agreement was reached dismissing the charges. By pleading to a simple traffic offence, our client was saved from any jail time, from having to complete a drivers intervention program, from high points to his license, a damaging criminal record, and high fines.
Our client was placed on an performance improvement plan at work and then terminated. Through a hearing, we showed that performance issues improved after the PIP and that the employer lacked just cause to terminate. The Hearing Officer agreed, approving our client for benefits with a back-payement.
Our client was laid off from work and applied for benefits. His employer later offered him a temporary assignment for one week, and then the layoff resumed the following week. Because our client did not restart/reopen his claim for the week with no earnings, unemployment denied him claiming he did not show a valid reason for not having work. After working to obtain documentation and submit an appeal, the appeal was granted and he was approved for benefits.
Our client resigned from employment, providing a standard two-week notice. The employer terminated him before the end of the two weeks due to the resignation. Although he was initially denied for unemployment for lacking just cause to resign, we prevailed at a hearing by showing that it was a termination rather than a resignation. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that the law is, if an employee is discharged during a notice of resignation period, and the employer does not pay normal wages to the employee for the balance of that period, then the question will be whether there was just cause in connection with work to support the discharge. Here there was no just cause to terminate, and as a result unemployment benefits were approved.
Our client was charged with a fourth-degree misdemeanor assault after an altercation at a store. Though the incident was captured on video and defenses were tenuous at best, extensive negotiations were held that led to a dismissal of the assault charges with our client entering a plea to a much lower disorderly conduct charge. This saved our client from up to six-months in jail, up to a $1,000.00 fine, the impact to his criminal record and potential loss of his job.
Our client was charged with an OVI after the police observed him get into a vehicle, start it and turn on the lights. We prevailed in showing that an OVI conviction requires actual movement of the vehicle, which did not happen in this case. As a result, the OVI charges were dismissed with our client entering a plea to a non-moving citation instead.
Our client was charged with a second-time OVI and a high tier test reading. Through extensive negotiations, we were able to achieve a dismissal of the OVI with our client pleading to a reduced charge of reckless op. This saved our client from high points to her license and harsh OVI mandatory minimums.
Our client was approved unemployment compensation, but denied after she sold a few items on Etsy. We showed unemployment that our client, regardless of a few sales on Etsy, remained eligible for unemployment compensation. As a result, an overpayment of $30,000.00 that unemployment was seeking was eliminated, with our client approved for future benefits as well.
Our client was charged with an OVI. Despite showing some signs of impairment and damage to his vehicle, he submitted to a breath test that showed no alcohol. A search of his vehicle was done that showed no drugs. We presented evidence that he may have been experiencing a medical issue, and as a result the OVI charges were dismissed with him pleading to just a non-moving citation.
Our client had lifting restrictions that prevented her from working her current job, though she could have worked other jobs. While she was initially denied unemployment, we showed the Hearing Officer that her inability to work was through no fault of her own and she remained otherwise available to work. The Hearing Officer agreed, holding, "The leave of absence, therefore, was involuntary and claimant was involuntarily unemployed." As a result, her unemployment benefits were approved.
When a person is receiving unemployment benefits, they may still have some work and some income. However, when they have a week of earnings followed by a week with no earnings, they cannot simply file regular claims but must restart their claims for the week with no earnings. This will prompt questions about why there were no earnings (e.g., did the person refuse work, were they fired, did they quit, etc...). The unemployment system makes this entirely unclear and as a result many people get fall into this trap that includes a denial for all subsequent weeks. Our client was one such victim; however, we appealed and prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that the person did not have any work available during the week with no earnings. As a result, a substantial overpayment was eliminated for our client.
Our client was hired as an account representative with certain revenue goals to meet. Despite meeting those goals and receiving a promotion, the Employer added additional performance criteria that our client did not meet for one month. After the Employer terminated our client and ODJFS initially denied benefits, we prevailed at a telephone hearing by showing that our client was a good employee, met the performance expectations he was given when hired, and the new performance expectations were not reasonable. As a result, his benefits were approved.
Our client had sporadic W-2 employment during 2019 that came to an end, but she was also hired to start a new job in 2021. The new job offer was rescinded due to COVID. She applied for and was denied PUA benefits because they determined the reason the W-2 employment came to and end was not COVID related. During a telephone hearing, we persuaded that the hearing officer that, regardless of why the W-2 employment came to an end, she qualified for PUA benefits because she was hired to start another job but that new job offer was rescinded due to COVID. As a result, unemployment benefits were approved.
Our client found her hours at work cut in half and benefits eliminated. The employer said that it would work to restore her hours, but after seven weeks they remained the same. As a result, she resigned. ODJFS and Hearing Officer Leanne Colton of the UCRC concluded that she did not have just cause to resign. We appealed the case to court, drafted legal briefs, and obtained a decision reversing the earlier denials and approving her benefits.
An employee of the Greater Cleveland Regional Transit Authority was driving her bus when an SUV to the right of her illegally turned left into her bus. The RTA disciplined the employee, claiming she could have done more to prevent the accident. We represented her union, the Amalgamated Transit Union Local 268 through an arbitration hearing, drafting post-hearing briefs, and ultimately persuading the arbitrator that the preventability determination was made with the benefit of hindsight - not based on what the employee knew at the time - and therefore the RTA lacked just cause to issue the discipline.
Our client was an OBER driver who found their business fall off when the pandemic hit. He applied for PUA benefits, but was denied because unemployment believed he was not working simply to avoid contracting COVlD-19. We persuaded the Hearing Officer that the public health emergency severely limited his ability to continue performing his customary work activities, and as a result, he was approved for PUA benefits.
After an argument erupted between our client and his girlfriend, he found himself charged with domestic violence. After obtaining discovery material from the state and thoroughly researching the allegations, we met with the prosecutor and reached an agreement that included a dismissal of the domestic violence charges.
Our client was hired for a local job, only to find during orientation that the employer hired her into a position that was different from the position she accepted. Further, the new position required travel and overnights out of the state. For several reasons, our client was unable to do such traveling and, after attempting to resolve the issue with the employer, she resigned. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that she had just cause to resign and she was approved for unemployment benefits with a backpayment.
Our client was pulled over for speeding and then subjected to field sobriety tests and a chemical test that indicated she was over the legal limit. However, after reviewing discovery material and attending pre-trials, we were able to persuade the prosecutor and judge to agree to dismiss the OVI charges with our client pleading instead to a non-moving traffic citation, saving her from points, jail, a license suspension and high fines.
Our client held a commercial driver's license (CDL) for his employment. After being charged with an OVI, he needed to not only achieve a reduction of the OVI but his administrative license suspension (ALS) needed to be vacated. We achieved exactly that, preserving his CDL and his job.
Our client had disagreements with co-workers who eventually accused our client of making threats. During a telephone hearing, we showed that the employer lacked any credible evidence that the accusations were true while we helped our client to credibly explain what happened. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer lacked just cause to terminate and as a result our client was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.
Our client had a minor surgery while collecting unemployment and unemployment responded by denying the remainder of her benefits denied as being unable to work. We proceeded through a telephone hearing and persuaded that Hearing Officer that our client was in fact able to work and eligible for benefits. As a result, she received her unemployment including a backpayment.
When an a claimant is receiving unemployment and has a week of earnings followed by a week of no earnings, they are supposed to restart their claim to explain why they had no earnings. This is less than clear and many claimants do not realize this. Our client was one such claimant and as a result was denied benefits and asked to pay back nearing $9,000.00. We helped show why our client had one week of no earnings and why they remained eligible for benefits, and as a result obtained a win for our client eliminating the overpayment.
Our client worked for a restaurant where the owner seemed to target her due to the color of her skin. For example, the owner instructed her to straighten her hair while not giving the same directive to white employees. The employer then reduced her weekly hours from 30 to 12. The Hearing Officer agreed with us that our client had just cause to resign and as a result her unemployment compensation was approved.
We represented our client for OVI charges and achieved a dismissal of the charges through intensive negotiations with the prosecutor.
Our client had a medical issue that limited the weight he could lift. The employer terminated him, claiming he could not do his job. Although our client was initially denied unemployment benefits, we demonstrated that there is no just cause to terminate for bonafide medical issues. As a result, our client was approved for benefits.
Our client accepted a new job while on unemployment but found the physical demands of the job exceeded is ability. As a result he resigned. Although unemployment initially denied him for the denial, we prevailed at the hearing by showing he was not medically able to do the job. As a result, his benefits were approved.
Our client worked at a medical office where COVID safety protocols were not being followed. She raised her concerns to the employer to no avail and as a result resigned. The Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign and was approved for unemployment benefits.
Our client was receiving unemployment when he received a job offer. He could not work the week the job was offered due to a medical reason. ODJFS denied him benefits from the date of the job offer forward. The Hearing Officer held; however, that while he was not able to work one week, he was eligible for all other weeks and future claims. His unemployment was approved with benefits.
Our client was asked to return to work after being laid off due to COVID. She had concerns about returning that she expressed to the employer and awaited a response. The employer responded by terminating her though, claiming she no-call/no-showed for work. The Hearing Officer disagreed and issued a decision approving our client for unemployment benefits.
Our client was charged with a second lifetime OVI and a refusal. After working with our client, obtaining discovery and negotiating with the prosecutor, an agreement was reached to reduce the OVI to a traffic citation saving our client from high points, jail time, high fines and the impact of an OVI to his driving record and insurance.
Our client worked as a substitute teacher until he was laid off. While collecting unemployment, he turned down a job offer at a fast-food restaurant. Unemployment denied him for turning down the offer, but we showed that he had good cause to turn it down and the Hearing Officer approved him for benefits.
Our client received a lump sum severance payment that ODJFS claimed was deductible income, disqualifying her from benefits, for several week. With our help, our client obtained a letter from her employer allocating the severance to the week in which it was paid. We persuaded the Hearing Officer that the severance should only applied to the week in which it was paid rather than several weeks, and as a result our client was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.
Our client was charged with a second OVI with a breath test that was nearly twice the legal limit. However, after successfully presenting both legal challenges and mitigating circumstances, and agreement was reached to reduce the OVI to a non-moving violation, saving our client from high points to his license, jail and a license suspension.
Our client was cited with an OVI, with an over-the-limit test, after a caller reported him and he was involved in a minor traffic accident. Through meeting with the prosecutor, obtaining and evaluating the police reports and video, we raised issues with regard to the field sobriety tests and breath test. As a result, our client accepted an offer to reduce the OVI to a traffic citation to avoid a year-long license suspension, high points and high fines.
Our client was initially denied unemployment compensation after she resigned from her restaurant job. The employer did not enforce mask wearing despite her repeated requests and reminders for it to do so. This placed our client and her elderly mother with whom she lived at greater risk for COVID. We showed the Hearing Officer that our client had an legitimate safety concern, the employer was not following state mandates, and that our client notified the employer of the concerns and gave them an adequate opportunity to resolve them before resigning. As a result, the Hearing Officer ruled in our favor and approved unemployment compensation benefits.
The employer raised several allegations to support its decision to terminate our client who worked at a cellphone store. During the hearing we showed the Hearing Officer that the employer lacked evidence to substantiate its allegations. Rather, our client presented credible testimony denying the allegations and as a result the Hearing Officer concluded that the employer lacked just cause to terminate our client. He was approved for unemployment compensation with a back payment.
Our client was cited with an OVI and for speeding after a traffic stop where the state trooper chose not to provide all of the available field sobriety tests, indicated reasons why the one test that was offered was unreliable, and then failed to offer a breath test or urine test. After pursuing a suppression motion laying out the legal deficiencies of the traffic stop and lack of evidence for the charges, an agreement was reached to dismiss both the speeding ticket and the OVI with our client pleading to a minor misdemeanor traffic citation with a minimal fine and no license suspension.
We previously prevailed at a labor arbitration in which a union member was awarded their job back. When they returned, they were kept from working despite a contractual 40-hour guarantee because the employer said they could not work without their full uniform in training, despite the employer failing to provide the uniform and despite allowing other trainees work without full uniform. The arbitrator agreed that the employer's failure to meet the 40-hour guarantee was a breach of the CBA without sufficient justification. As a result, the employer was ordered to compensate the union member for their lost work hours.
Our client received a group text from his employer informing him that he was laid off. As a result, he applied for unemployment compensation only to find his employer challenging his claim by arguing that he resigned. Through a telephone hearing, we showed the Hearing Officer that our client was, in fact, entitled to benefits as a result of a layoff.
When our client was hired at a lawn care business he explained that he had medical issues that required him to operate stand on mowers instead of push mowers. The employer, however, assigned him to work on push mowers. After trying and experiencing pain as a result, our client resigned. He was initially denied unemployment benefits; however, through a hearing we persuaded the Hearing Officer that he was eligible because his medical issues made the work not suitable for him.
Our client applied for benefits after losing a job and was denied. He then obtained new employment where he worked for more than six weeks until he was laid off due to COVID. He reapplied for benefits and was denied again due to the first job. We represented him through a telephone hearing and showed that his employment at the new job was for sufficient weeks and income to remove the suspension of benefits from the first job.
Our client worked as a delivery driver at an employer who repeatedly violated Department of Transportation rules. After our client raised these concerns and the employer refused to address them, he resigned. ODJFS initially denied unemployment benefits claiming our client lacked just cause to resign. During a hearing, we persuaded the Hearing Officer that these violations occurred, that they created a safety hazard, that our client raised his concerns and gave the employer an adequate opportunity to resolve them, and as a result he had just cause to resign. His benefits were approved with a back payment.
Our client's employer sent a notice to its employees that said, any employee that has significant concerns or fear of continued employment shall be laid off and may apply for economic relief available through state or federal sources. The employer appealed, claiming our client was out of work due to health reasons. We prevailed, showing that our client was eligible because he was laid off pursuant to an employer layoff plan and that it was related to a lack of work.
Our client sought a job while she was on unemployment, attended an orientation and then was told that she would need to restart the orientation because she was unable to attend the second day. Though the employer never called her back or returned her calls to reschedule the orientation, unemployment denied her claiming she turned down an offer of suitable work. We convinced unemployment that she did not turn down work but rather was not called back and, as a result, she was approved for unemployment benefits.
A bus driver who was faced with an aggressive and threatening passenger took steps to protect himself, including holding the passenger's arms back, restraining her in a seat, and keeping her on the bus until the police arrived. The Employer terminated the bus driver claiming he contributed to the incident. We were able to persuade the arbitrator that the bus driver's actions were reasonable, measured and in self-defense under the circumstances and lack of training from the employer. As a result, he was awarded his job back with back-pay.
Our client was making a career in the customer service field and even had a related college degree. She accepted a job at Amazon as a customer service representative, only to find that her actual job duties would include working with delivery drivers to troubleshoot the application they used, as well as geofencing and package locating. Because she was given a technical job rather than a customer service job, the Hearing Officer agreed that she had just cause to resign. As a result, she approved for unemployment compensation with a back-payment of benefits.
Our client was denied unemployment as being monetarily ineligible. He filed an appeal, but after three months had not received an answer to his appeal. We stepped in, made contact with individuals and ODJFS, submitted payroll verification, and achieved a win for him and payment of the benefits he had been waiting for.
Our client was issued a notice by unemployment that they were overpaid unemployment and owed back over $11,000.00. We appealed, showing that the decision was in error, and as a result the overpayment was withdrawn and our client did not have to pay back to unemployment.
Our client had an otherwise good work record when a customer emailed a complaint about his "attitude." The Employer, without following up with the customer about the details of the complaint, terminated our client. The Hearing Officer agreed that the employer failed to provide credible evidence that it had just cause to terminate our client. As a result, he was approved for unemployment.
Our client had several absences from work and was terminated. During a hearing, we showed that she had medical excuses for her absences. We argued and set forth caselaw that says that employees are not at fault for absences due to bona fide medical conditions. Even if the employer can terminate the employee, they are still entitled to unemployment. The Hearing Officer agreed and approved our client for benefits.
OVI charges dismissed against our client, saving them from a license suspension, points to their license and high fines.
Our client quit a job to work a new job, then worked the new job for more than six weeks before being laid off due to COVID. She was denied unemployment because ODJFS determined she lacked just cause to quit the old job. However, the rule is that such a suspension of benefits is removed if the employee earns sufficient income and either (a) starts the new job within 7 days of the old job and works for at least 3 weeks, or (b) starts the new job more then 7 days after the old job and works the new job for at least 6 weeks. Since our client met this requirements, the Hearing Officer agreed to approve her for unemployment with backpayments.
Our client had been on FMLA and when that time ran out her employment ended. However, because she had a bona fide medical reason for being absent, the separation was a qualifying one. To be eligible for unemployment, she also had to show that she was able to work, even if she had some restrictions. We were able to show both that the separation did not disqualify her and that she was able to work, and as a result she was approved for unemployment with a backpayment.
Our client received a string of charges, including a first-degree misdemeanor resisting arrest charge, after a visit to the islands. We achieved an agreement for our client to plead to a minor misdemeanor charge with a fine of $150.00 in exchange for a dismissal of all other charges.
Our client received several first-degree misdemeanor charges (OVI, Hit-and-Skip, Resisting Arrest). However, as we argued her case we also argued that the state failed to provide body cam footage that it had available. As a result, all of the charges were dismissed in exchange for a plea to a non-moving traffic citation.
Our client was charged with an OVI due to a suspicion of driving while under the influence of narcotics. We showed the prosecutor and judge that this was only a suspicion, lacking of sufficient evidence to prove our client was impaired. An agreement was reached to dismiss the OVI, with our client pleading to just a traffic citation. This saved our client from high points to his license, a license suspension and high fines.
Our client was off of work due to medical issues. When his short term disability came to and end, the employer terminated him. The Hearing Officer agreed that a termination due to a medical issue is beyond a claimant's control and therefore without just cause. The Hearing Officer also agreed that, upon our client's release to work with some restrictions, he became eligible or benefits.