8/11/2019 CUIAB Leslie Fenton Case No. 5258347

1/2

Case No : 5258347

CL T/PET: Leslie

S.

Fenton

Parties Appearing: Claimant

Parties Appearing by Written Statement:

San Jose Office of Appeals

ALJ: Luma

S.

Williams

Claimant

ISSUE STATEMENT

The claimant appealed from a determination disqualifying the claimant for

unemployment benefits under Unemployment Insurance Code section 1256. The

issue

in

this case

is

whether the claimant was discharged for misconduct

connected with the most recent work.

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant was most recently employed by the City o Carmel By The Sea as a

finance specialist and coordinator. She worked for this employer from August

7

1995, to October 29, 2013. The claimant stopped working on October 29

because she was placed

on

paid administrative leave pending

an

investigation.

She was subsequently discharged from employment effective March

26.

2014.

and as of her last day of employment her wages were 37.36 per hour.

The claimant was discharged from employment for allegedly looking at the

emails of the City Administrator and other City employees. for allegedly

accessing documents belonging

to

other City employees through a group

designated LadyAdmin, for allegedly installing a software program

to

delete files,

and for allegedly releasing confidential information and documents

to

members

of the press.

The claimant appeared at the hearing by written declaration and denied the

allegations made by the employer. She also provided documentation to rebut the

allegations made by the employer.

Prior to discharge, the claimant did not receive reprimands or warnings for any

reason.

REASONS FOR DECISION

Hearsay evidence is admissible for whatever weight the administrative law judge

deems it to be worth. (Precedent Decision P-B-235.)

If weaker and less satisfactory evidence

is

offered when it was within the power

of the party to produce stronger and more satisfactory evidence, the evidence

offered should be viewed with distrust. (Evidence Code, section 412.)

525834 7-140724

8/11/2019 CUIAB Leslie Fenton Case No. 5258347

2/2

In

this matter, the claimant made credible statements

in

her written declaration,

supported by documentation from a forensic expert, to rebut the allegations

made by the employer. The employer, on the other hand, did not appear at the

hearing, nor did it provide any evidence, aside from hearsay statements, to

support the allegations made against the claimant, even though it had the

opportunity to do

so

Accordingly, the statements made by the claimant are

given greater weight.

An individual

is

disqualified for benefits if he or she left his or her most recent

work voluntarily without good cause. (Unemployment Insurance Code, section

1256.)

Misconduct connected with the work'.

is

a substantial breach by the claimant of

an

important duty or obligation owed the employer, wilful or wanton

in

character.

and tending to injure the employer. (Precedent Decision P-B-3. citing Maywood

Glass Co v Stewart (1959) 170 Cai.App.2d 719.)

The employer has the burden of proving misconduct. Prescod v alifornia

Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1976)

57

Cai.App.3d 29.)

In

this matter, the employer has not met its burden of proving that the claimant

substantially breached any duty or obligation owed to the employer. Accordingly.

the claimant was discharged for reasons other than misconduct connected with

her most recent work and is not disqualified under code section 1256. Benefits

are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible.

DECISION

The department determination

is

reversed. The claimant

is

not disqualified under

code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise

eligible.

SJOA:Isw 1/2

5258347-140724