Yet Another Lawsuit!

I was vaguely aware that there was an ongoing dispute regarding unemployment benefits resulting from Fr Kelley's constructive termination as Rector of St Mary's in April 2012. The final disposition of this case, at least as far as the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board was concerned, took place on February 2, 2014, in which the Board ruled that Fr Kelley was eligible for unemployment insurance benefits. The ACA appointed Bush vestry has filed suit against the Board in Los Angeles Superior Court in a further effort to appeal this verdict.

I was able to locate a copy of the appeals board decision at the Freedom for St Mary site. The whole story is remarkable and bizarre (as, for that matter, is what emerges from a perusal of the California appeals court's decision as well). The Bush vestry claimed that Fr Kelley was discharged for reasons of misconduct and was thus not eligible for unemployment benefits. The EDD originally agreed, but Fr Kelley appealed. The case seesawed back and forth for over a year, but the appeals board's final ruling was as follows:

"Misconduct connected with the work" is a substantial breach by the claimant of an important duty or obligation owed the employer, wilful or wanton in character, and tending to injure the employer. (Precedent Decision P-B-3, citing Maywood Glass Co. v. Stewart (1959) 170 Cal.App.2d 719.)

The employer has the burden of proving misconduct. (Prescod v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board (1976) 57 Cal.App.3d 29.)

The employer did not produce a shred of evidence to support any of the allegations contained in the letter of inhibition which served as the notice of discharge. All evidence provided by the employer concerned activities which occurred after the claimant had already been discharged and thus could not serve as the basis for the discharge. Consequently we reverse the decision of the administrative law judge and find the claimant was discharged for reasons not amounting to misconduct for purposes of unemployment insurance benefits.

DECISION

The decision of the administrative law judge is reversed. The claimant is not disqualified for benefits under code section 1256. Benefits are payable provided the claimant is otherwise eligible. The employer's reserve account is not relieved of charges.

But this raises a very puzzling question. I assume Fr Kelley is eligible for 26 weeks of employer-paid unemployment, at about $450 per week, so the maximum St Mary's would have to pay him would be a little under $12,000. (It would not have to pay any federal supplement beyond that.) How much is the Bush vestry paying Lancaster & Anastasia LLP to pursue this matter in Los Angeles Superior Court? It's probably cheaper just to pay the claim.

My wife thinks the Bush vestry can't allow the factual finding of the appeals board, that there was not "a shred" of evidence of misconduct on Fr Kelley's part. Thus they're willing to spend any amount to try to suppress the record here, since they have a civil suit alleging theft against Fr Kelley that is still pending. As far as I can tell, the theft allegations in the civil suit are exactly the same as the misconduct allegations in the unemployment claim dispute.

However, the civil theft suit is on very shaky ground, given the problem of the Bush vestry's standing. The California Appeals Court has found that the Bush vestry is not valid. The standing issue would apply in this case as well.

A hearing is scheduled for February 25.