Elmayan v. Board of Review of the Department of Employment & Training

Citations: 627 A.2d 324; 1993 R.I. LEXIS 184; 1993 WL 228353Docket: No. 92-235-M.P.

Court: Supreme Court of Rhode Island; June 28, 1993; Rhode Island; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

The Supreme Court addressed a petition by defendants seeking a writ of certiorari to review a District Court ruling that reversed the Board of Review of the Department of Employment and Training's decision. The case involved plaintiff Haroutioun S. Elmayan, who, after working for CPP Pinkerton Security Company, applied directly to Citizens Bank. His application contained a clear directive to list current or last employers first and required acknowledgment of the consequences of misrepresentation. Elmayan listed his employment history but omitted his time with Waekenhut Security Company, which he later disclosed to Citizens Bank after being hired. He explained that he feared this omission would negatively impact his employment prospects due to a theft accusation from a prior assignment at Waekenhut.

Following his termination due to the omission, Elmayan sought unemployment benefits, which were denied on the grounds of disqualifying circumstances. The board of review upheld this denial, but the District Court found Elmayan's omission did not constitute "proved misconduct" under relevant law. Citizens Bank and the board of review then petitioned for certiorari, questioning whether the District Court erred in its assessment. The Supreme Court ultimately quashed the District Court's judgment, indicating that the issue at hand was whether the District Court's reversal of the board's decision was erroneous.

The jurisdiction of the reviewing court is limited to legal questions, with the board of review's factual findings deemed conclusive if supported by substantial evidence. Additional evidence must be presented to the board, which then submits modified findings to the court. In this case, the board found that the plaintiff failed to disclose previous employers on his application, leading to termination under disqualifying circumstances. The court interpreted "proved misconduct" as a significant disregard for an employer's interests, including deliberate violations of expected behavior or substantial negligence. The trial judge acknowledged that while the plaintiff's omission breached his employment contract, it did not constitute misconduct under the relevant statute. The judge's review focused solely on statutory interpretation, accepting the board's factual findings. Consequently, the defendants' claim that the District Court exceeded its authority was rejected. The issue of whether failure to disclose prior employment is considered misconduct had not been previously addressed by the court, prompting a review of similar cases in other states. Pennsylvania's courts noted that not all false statements on applications are disqualifying unless they pertain to material aspects of employment, emphasizing the need to consider each case's context regarding the materiality of concealed information.

The plaintiff held a position of trust and failed to disclose his prior discharge from a security job amid theft allegations, which justifies the denial of benefits. Although the plaintiff completed the job application fully and was not required to list all prior positions, he intentionally omitted his experience with Waekenhut, aware it would lead to rejection. During the interview, he was asked about gaps in his employment but still did not disclose this critical information until after being hired and working for two and a half days. The court deems the withheld information as highly relevant and acknowledges that the plaintiff recognized its significance. Consequently, his failure to disclose warranted dismissal. The court finds the District Court's decision erroneous, grants the petition for certiorari, quashes the District Court's judgment, and remands the case for further proceedings. The relevant statute indicates that an individual discharged for misconduct is ineligible for benefits until certain work and earnings criteria are met, with exceptions for unfair labor practice complaints.