Maxson Firm Wins Fayette Circuit Court Lawsuit Reversing Kentucky Unemployment Benefits Denial
Court finds claimant was not discharged for unemployment misconduct after refusing to memorialize disputed, unsubstantiated “mistakes.”
LEXINGTON, Ky. — Maxson Firm, PLLC secured a Fayette Circuit Court reversal of a Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission decision denying unemployment benefits to Bryan M., a former loan processor for Airmart, Inc.
Maxson Firm filed suit in Fayette Circuit Court challenging the Commission’s decision after Bryan M. was denied unemployment insurance benefits based on alleged “misconduct.” The case centered on whether he could be disqualified from receiving benefits because he refused to write an email memorializing alleged “mistakes” he reasonably disputed making.
The Fayette Circuit Court reversed and remanded the Commission’s decision, finding that Bryan M. was not discharged for misconduct under KRS 341.370(6) merely because he refused to memorialize alleged mistakes he believed he did not make.
“This result mattered because my side of the story was finally looked at and heard,” Bryan M. said. “More importantly, the facts were taken into consideration. When an actual judge looked at the facts, they determined that the Unemployment Commission can make mistakes.”
Dispute Over Alleged “Mistakes”
Bryan M. worked as a loan processor for Airmart. The dispute arose after several aircraft-financing transactions did not close by dates selected by the company president. According to the Court’s order, the employer demanded that Bryan M. prepare an email memorializing his alleged “mistakes” and “what he did wrong.” Bryan M. maintained that he had not caused the delays and refused to put disputed blame in writing.
The Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission upheld the denial of unemployment benefits, concluding that Bryan M. had refused a reasonable instruction. The Fayette Circuit Court disagreed.
After reviewing the administrative hearing transcript, the Court found that the requested email was not merely a neutral explanation of why the loans had not closed. Instead, the Court found that the record supported only the conclusion that Bryan M. had been ordered to produce an email memorializing “what he did wrong.”
The Court held that, under the circumstances, requiring such an email created an undue hardship and was not a reasonable instruction unless the alleged mistakes could be substantiated.
Why the Decision Matters
The decision addresses an important issue in Kentucky unemployment insurance law: whether an employer can turn a disputed accusation into disqualifying misconduct by ordering an employee to put that accusation in writing.
The Court rejected that approach. In its order, the Court explained that allowing such a rule would create a “Catch-22,” permitting an employer to deny unemployment benefits either by firing the employee for refusing to admit alleged misconduct or by using the written admission as proof of misconduct.
The Court concluded that an employee discharged merely for refusing to memorialize “mistakes” he reasonably believes he did not make is not discharged for misconduct under KRS 341.370(6).
Bryan M. said it was important not to admit to mistakes he did not believe he made.
“I went to work every day and took pride in my work,” he said. “It was important not to write an email admitting to mistakes I did not make because at some point you have to stand up for yourself.”
James Maxson, principal of Maxson Firm, said the decision is significant because unemployment misconduct must be based on evidence, not merely an employer’s characterization of events.
“This decision matters because unemployment misconduct cannot be created by forcing an employee to accept disputed blame in writing,” Maxson said. “If an employer claims a worker made disqualifying mistakes, those mistakes still have to be supported by evidence. An employee should not lose unemployment benefits simply because he refused to memorialize an accusation he reasonably disputed.”
Client Praises Representation in Circuit Court Appeal
Bryan M. said the administrative process was stressful and difficult to navigate without legal experience.
“Being denied your rightfully owed unemployment benefits is stressful,” he said. “In the initial benefit denial and the subsequent appeal process, the system feels backwards. They make you feel guilty until proven innocent. Appealing to the Circuit Court felt like I finally had a non-biased party involved to look at the facts clearly.”
Bryan M. said he was glad he hired Maxson Firm to handle the Circuit Court appeal.
“My experience was great,” he said. “I had no idea about the appeal process, and James communicated every part of the process and what we could expect. I am glad I hired him to handle the appeal. I would tell someone to definitely hire an attorney from the jump.”
Maxson Firm represents Kentucky claimants and employers in unemployment insurance hearings, Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission appeals, overpayment disputes, and circuit court appeals involving Kentucky unemployment insurance decisions.
Disclaimer: This post discusses a specific court decision and is provided for general informational purposes only. It is not legal advice. Every case depends on its own facts and applicable law. Prior results do not guarantee a similar outcome.
