…or so the state of Wisconsin has on file.
Long story short, my business fired an employee a while back. He filed for unemployment and it was denied. He appealed the denial and an appeal hearing was scheduled. He didn’t show up (or, rather, pick up his phone since it was a telephone hearing) and the appeal was dismissed for failure to appear. He appealed the dismissal (the failure to appear dismissal), which requires good cause, because he ‘can’t answer his phone at work’. While I likely didn’t have to respond to that because I don’t think the UI Tribunal will accept that as ‘good cause’, I replied anyway, explaining that, in every letter between the initial denial and the appeal hearing (3 or 4 mailings) it was explicitly stated that being at work doesn’t count as an excuse for not appearing and that you’re expected to arrange for that.
When he appealed the failure to appear dismissal, all they want to know is your reason is for missing the hearing, that’s it. However, he sent in a 5 page, handwritten screed. The first page was, and I’m not really paraphrasing much, ‘I can’t answer my phone at work, please read my statement’, the following 4 pages started off with ‘May I read my statement without interruption and then I’ll hang up’. After reading it a few times and wondering why he’d put all this into his appeal, I realized something. This was a monologue he was planning to read to them at his first opportunity during the appeal hearing.
What I find even odder is that he had this prepared, implying he was planning to attend the hearing, but surely he knew he wouldn’t be allowed to answer his phone at work. Plus, he had to know that there was no way his case wouldn’t be dismissed again if he just read his statement and hung up. Think about it. Even if they allowed him to read it and he hung up afterwards, what happens next? I see two options. The first being that they ask our side some questions to which he would be unable to rebut, the second option being that they dismiss the case as soon as he hangs up.
And, I know he’s not that bright and certainly doesn’t understand the legal (or at least UI*) system. But did he really thing someone would read his monologue and say ‘well, lets just settle this in his favor and be done with it’.
Getting back to the thread title, his 5 page screed included the line “Joey P is a hillbilly pothead who lies and [owner] is a raging alcoholic that once punched me”. FTR, the owner never laid a hand on him and isn’t a raging alcoholic. While both of those, or at least the part about punching him, are unfalsafiable, no proof of them happening exists either. Both because it didn’t happen and even if it did, no camera footage of it exists (no camera footage even exists from during his time of employment) and, so far as I know, he never filed any kind of report with anyone.
Also, I’m not a hillbilly.
That’s all, just thought it was amusing.
PS, this is in MPSIMS and not IMHO because I’m not looking for any type of legal advice.