The Petitioner, Belynda Bowman-Cook, had been employed by the Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (“WMATA”) for several years as an electrical helper. In June 2008, she became ill. She called in sick to WMATA and did not return to work prior to September 29, 2008 when she was terminated. During that period WMATA issued several pieces of certified mail to Petitioner regarding her job status that were not retrieved from the post office. The Department of Employment Services denied the Petitioner’s claim for unemployment benefits and thereafter a hearing was held before an ALJ.

The ALJ found the Petitioner had failed to accept mail at the address she had provided to WMATA as required by the rules governing her employment, and that the same amounted to misconduct. The ALJ noted that “gross misconduct,” is defined as “an act which deliberately or willfully violates the employer’s rules” 7 DCMR § 312.3 (2006). It is simple misconduct for an employee to breach her duties in a way that adversely affects the employer. It is the employer’s burden to prove gross misconduct.

The ALJ found that the Petitioner’s failure to receive mail was only simple misconduct. However, even simple misconduct disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits for a period of eight (8) weeks for which she was otherwise eligible. D.C. Code § 51-110 (b) (1)–(2) (2001). The Petitioner sought judicial review of the ALJ’s decision.

The Court’s standard of review of a decision from the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) is a deferential one: “This court must affirm an OAH decision when (1) OAH made findings of fact on each materially contested issue of fact, (2) substantial evidence supports each finding, and (3) OAH’s conclusions flow rationally from its findings of fact.” Rodriguez v. Filene’s Basement, Inc., 905 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C. 2006).

However, the Court noted that the ALJ’s decision could not stand on this record. Particularly, while the Petitioner was ill (with depression), her sister was handling the business of the house, and the ALJ found that the sister received several notices of certified mail, but did not retrieve the mail from the post office. However, the ALJ made no finding as to whether the Petitioner actually received notice from the Postal Service and in spite of receiving the same refused to accept the certified mail from WMATA. The Court determined that the ALJ’s lack of a factual finding on this issue was critical to determining if Petitioner had committed misconduct, and therefore the matter needed to be remanded to OAH.

Furthermore, the Court found that the ALJ improperly limited the Petitioner’s ability to present evidence at the hearing. Notably, the ALJ required that the evidence be confined to the specific issue of whether the Petitioner received the certified mail from WMATA. On this basis, Petitioner was precluded from presenting documents and testimony regarding the communications she had with the medical department of WMATA informing them of her medical condition. The Court noted that such communication is pertinent to deciding whether Petitioner was intentionally refusing to accept correspondence from her employer. Therefore, the Petitioner should have been permitted to present this evidence at her hearing.