368 | 2023 Cal-Peculiarities ©2023 Seyfarth Shaw LLP www.seyfarth.com unemployment benefits claim, the employer will provide complete, truthful, and accurate information in response to any claim for unemployment insurance benefits. 15.3.3 No issue preclusion The ALJ’s decision in an unemployment compensation proceeding is not admissible, at least in state court,25 and has no preclusive effect in a later proceeding.26 15.3.4 Transcript provided Witnesses before the ALJ give tape-recorded testimony under oath. Parties can obtain copies of the tape. That testimony can be used against the witness in a later legal proceeding.27 1 Unempl. Ins. Code §§ 1253, 1253.8, 1253.9. 2 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1253. 3 AB 5, 2019 bill codified in Lab. Code § 2775(b)(1). 4 SB 271, 2019 bill amending Unemp. Ins. Code §§ 602, 603. 5 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1253.8. 6 Id. 7 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1256. 8 Id. 9 Id. 10 Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 35 Cal. 3d 671, 678 (1984). 11 Id. 12 Paratransit, Inc. v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (Medeiros), 59 Cal. 4th 551, 559 (2014). The Supreme Court reversed a 2012 Court of Appeal decision that had found that the employee’s refusal to sign a disciplinary action form was “misconduct” that justified the denial of unemployment benefits. 13 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1256. 14 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 1256-1(f). 15 Kelly v. Unemployment Insurance Appeals Bd., 223 Cal. App. 4th 1067, 1077-79 (2014) (employer, to avoid liability for benefits, needs evidence that the employee took action that actually prevented the employer from retaining the employee, such as making an unequivocal demand that the employer meet some condition that it had no obligation to meet, and that the employees reasonably would have known to result in termination; employer cannot rely on the employee’s mere request, however “irritating or ungracious” such a request may be). 16 22 Cal. Code Regs. § 1256-3. 17 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1256.2 provides: (a) Except as otherwise provided in subdivision (b), an individual who terminates his or her employment shall not be deemed to have left his or her most recent work without good cause if his or her employer deprived the individual of equal employment opportunities on any basis listed in subdivision (a) of Section 12940 of the Government Code, as those bases are defined in Sections 12926 and 12926.1 of the Government Code. (b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following: (1) A deprivation of equal employment opportunities that is based upon a bona fide occupational qualification or applicable security regulations established by the United States or this state, specifically, as provided in Section 12940 of the Government Code. (2) An individual who fails to make reasonable efforts to provide the employer with an opportunity to remove any unintentional deprivation of the individual’s equal employment opportunities. 18 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1256.5. 19 See Unempl. Ins. Code § 1256. 20 See id. 21 Land v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 54 Cal. App. 5th 127, 144-45 (2020). 22 See Unempl. Ins. Code § 1142. 23 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1142(a). 24 Unempl. Ins. Code § 1142(a)(3). 25 An administrative finding that an employee is entitled to benefits, or that an employer’s explanation for firing the employee is dubious, still may be admissible in federal court. See, e.g., Baldwin v. Rice, 144 F.R.D. 102, 105-07 (E.D. Cal. 1992) (“a state legislature cannot purport
RkJQdWJsaXNoZXIy OTkwMTQ4