Marion was denied unemployment benefits because her former employer said she was discharged due to conduct in the course of employment which constituted misconduct. At the hearing before the hearing officer, Marion testified that she was fired because the employer said she had stolen food from the store. She insisted that she had paid for the food, but she forget to keep the receipt. She could not remember the manner of payment, or who she had paid for the purchase. The employer responded saying that she was consuming products from the store in the employee lounge for which she did not have a receipt. Store policy stated in the signed employee manual requires that all employees who purchase an item from the store shall retain the store receipt for examination by a supervisor upon

Question

request. The hearing officer found in favor of the employer, based on ineligibility due to a single knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly-enforced rule or policy. Marion wants a court to review the agency’s decision. What issues does she face in seeking judicial review of her case?

What will be an ideal response?

Answer 1

Marion may seek judicial review, because she is aggrieved by the agency decision and has exhausted her administrative remedies. While the decision is reviewable by a court, the scope of review is limited. The APA provides for review when the agency has violated the Constitution, committed a procedural error, or exceeded its statutory authority, but a court will not retry the fact-findings of a hearing officer unless the record lacks substantial evidence to support the decision, or if the decision is arbitrary, capricious or an abuse of discretion. The court will only address issues of law. Individuals are not entitled to a trial de novo at the court level unless permitted by statute. A hearing officer’s decision on the facts will not be overturned unless clearly erroneous.