Full question:
I would like to know if it would be worth my time to petition for a Writ of Mandate against the Appeals Board for the Unemployment Office. They denied my claim not for what the Employer claimed but for me being late in filing my appeal to the denial of unemployment. They held the hearing knowing that the appeal was late. They denied me a second time as of yesterday but the letter states that The claimant appealed from the decisions of the administrative law judge which dismissed the appeals as untimely filed. It also states that This is the final decision by the Appeals Board. The Appeals Board has no authority to reconsider this decision. If you disagree with the decision, please refer to the information attachment which outlines your rights. If you wish to appeal the enclosed decision, you may seek review in Superior Court by filing a petition for Writ of Mandate. They did not even consider that the Employer lied in regards to my son. He did not show up for the hearing. If my son worked the position and he was laid off and did not commit Willful misconduct as the Employer said and there was no documentation ever given to my son, then why are they still trying to deny him because of a late appeal. Please help us, this is not fair.
- Category: Employment
- Date:
- State: California
Answer:
Administrative Law: Law & Legal Definition
Administrative law encompasses laws and legal principles created by administrative agencies (governmental bodies of the city, county, state or federal government) in governing the administration and regulation of government agencies (both Federal and state). Adminstrative law deals with rules, regulations, applications, licenses, permits, available information, hearings, appeals and decision-making of governmental agencies. Generally, administrative agencies are created to protect a public interest rather than to vindicate private rights and often to extend benefits, such as the Social Security Administration or state Unemployment Insurance Boards.
The Federal Administrative Procedure Act (FAPA) and similar state procedural acts regulate the constitutional parameters of governmental agencies. The FAPA is a remedial statute designed to ensure due process in the procedures used by federal agencies. The Act is comprised of a comprehensive regulatory scheme governing regulations, adjudications, and rule making in general terms. The FAPA is the major source for federal administrative agency law.
When an applicant objects to an agency's decision to deny, limit or terminate the benefits provided and seeks to have the decision reviewed. This review is called an administrative hearing and is held before an administrative law judge (ALJ). Usually, the ALJ meets with representatives from the agency and the applicant seeking benefits. The applicant be represented by an attorney and in fact, many administrative agencies permit paralegals, law students or law clerks to appear on behalf of applicants. The ALJ renders a decision called an administrative order, which may be reviewed by either a higher level within the agency or by a court. A person denied their claim by the ALJ must "exhaust his/her administrative remedies" (take every step, including appeals) with the agency and its system before the administrative ruling may be appealed by a lawsuit in court.
Procedural Law: Law & Legal Definition.
"Procedure" differs from "substantive law" in that substantive law defines the rights and duties of everyday conduct. Substantive law includes contract law, criminal law, etc.
A procedural system provides the rules for applying substantive law to real disputes. A procedural system provides guidelines as to what information is received by the judge or jury, how that information is to be presented, and what by standards of proof ("beyond a reasonable doubt," "by clear and convincing evidence," "by a preponderance of the evidence") the information will be judged.
In the adjudication process (a contested case in administrative law, a civil action in the courts), the decision-maker first addresses procedural issues, then substantive issues. As a general rule, the ALJ conducts any initial hearing upon the claim for benefits. And also as a general rule, if there were a procedural issue such as a late filing the ALJ would decide the contested case on procedural, not substantive grounds. In this instance, at the initial hearing on the merits, the ALJ ruled against the claimaint. Under California law, the claimaint had a period of time in which to file a notice of appeal with the Employment Commission. The claimant missed the deadline, but filed an untimely (a late) notice of appeal. The Employment Commission docketed the case for a hearing on the (late) appeal, and at the second hearing denied the appeal because the claimant missed the deadline for filing an appleal. This is all standard procedure; this is the way administrative law works: claimants at all stages of the process must file timely notices. The Employment Commission did not waive the requirement of timely notice by holding a hearing regarding an untimely notice of appeal. Notice of appeal and hearing are the mechanisms by which administrative law works. The public hearing is where the agency enforces the requirements of procedural law; the agency makes its decisions upon the record and in a public hearing. The claimant may now file a notice of appeal of the Employment Commission's decision with the appropriate Superior Court in order to obtain judicial review of the ultimate decision of the Employment Commission. As a general rule, the Superior Court first will determine whether the claimant has "exhausted all administrative remedies," and in this instance where the claimant has pursued both a hearing on the merits, and an administrative appeal, the claimant most probably has met that test. As a generel rule, the Superior Court then will determine whether the agency, the Employment Commission, followed existing procedural law in reaching its decision. If the Superior Court decides that the claimant's notice of appeal was in fact late under the agency's existing rules of administrative procedure, and that a late filing bars the appeal under the agency's then-existing rules of administrative procedure, then the Superior Court has legal grounds upon which to affirm the decision of the Employment Commission.
The claimant may file a notice of appeal of the EC's denial of employment benefits, but dismissal in the Superior Court for failure to file a timely complaint for review of the EC's decision, the claimant must file her or his complaint before the deadline expires.
Please see the information at the following links:
http://www.celaweb.org/CELALinks.html
http://www.cuiab.ca.gov/index.shtm
This content is for informational purposes only and is not legal advice. Legal statutes mentioned reflect the law at the time the content was written and may no longer be current. Always verify the latest version of the law before relying on it.
