After being terminated from your job, often the next step is filing for unemployment compensation. Unfortunately, many employers challenge your eligibility to receive unemployment compensation benefits, especially when they claim you were terminated for cause. This issue comes up frequently in employment discrimination claims. But, what happens if you win your unemployment compensation appeal?
What is collateral estoppel?
An unemployment compensation appeal hearing is considered an administrative proceeding. Therefore, it is a type of legal proceeding that can be recognized by other courts. There is a doctrine, known as "collateral estoppel," which states that an earlier decision rendered by a court, between the same parties and involving the same issues, cannot be re-litigated in a subsequent legal proceeding that involves the same parties. A recent case in Alabama demonstrates this principle and how it applies in employment cases.
Hale v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC
Collateral Estoppel is a doctrine by which an earlier decision rendered by a court in a lawsuit between the parties is conclusive as to the issues or controverted points so that they cannot be re-litigated in subsequent proceedings involving the same parties.
In Hale v. Hyundai Motor Manufacturing Alabama, LLC, the employee alleged that he was terminated in retaliation for filing a worker's compensation claim. After his termination, the employee filed for unemployment compensation (UC). His employer argued that he was terminated for misconduct. During the UC appeal hearing, the unemployment board determined that he had not committed any misconduct, and reinstated his benefits.
When his lawsuit was dismissed on summary judgment, Hale filed an appeal and argued that his employer was estopped from arguing that the termination was due to misconduct because the unemployment board decided that he had not committed any misconduct. His position was based on Alabama Supreme Court cases which held that an employee was collaterally estopped from arguing he was discharged for a reason other than misconduct, in a retaliatory discharge claim, if they were found to be disqualified from unemployment benefits due to misconduct connected with their work. The cases Hale relied on are essentially the reverse of the position he argued on appeal. However, the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals disagreed.
Reverse Collateral Estoppel Does not Apply
The Court of Appeals rejected this "reverse collateral estoppel" argument, reasoning that the issues are not identical due to the posture of the parties. In the cases Hale relied on, the unemployment decision found that the employee committed misconduct. This means there was a compelling conclusion that the employer had a legitimate reason for the termination. However, the reverse is not true. Alabama is an at-will employment state. Consequently, Hale's employer could terminate him for any reason, except for filing a workers' compensation claim, even if that reason does not amount to misconduct. Therefore, Hale's employer cannot be collaterally estopped from asserting that Hale was terminated because he violated company policies.
If you feel you have been the victim of discrimination or retaliation, or if you have any general questions regarding your employment rights, please contact Wrady Michel & King , either online or by calling us at (205) 265-1880.