Mendoza v. Aerotek, Inc.
Digest No. 12.159
Cite as: Mendoza v Aerotek, Inc, unpublished opinion of the Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission, issued August 18, 2017 (Docket No. 17-004211-252718W).
Court: Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Pedro Mendoza
Employer: Aerotek Incorporated
Date of decision: August 18, 2017
View/download the full decision
HOLDING: The Michigan Compensation Appellate Commission (MCAC) reversed an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) order finding Claimant disqualified for benefits under the “testing positive for drug use” provision of Section 29(1)(m). The Commission held that under Ashford v Unemployment Compensation Commission, 328 Mich 428, 433 (1950), the employer did not meet its burden of proof where it failed to appear, and thus no prima facie case was established to prove the misconduct. Therefore, the Commission reversed the order and found Claimant eligible for benefits.
FACTS: The Agency found Claimant disqualified for benefits under the misconduct provision of MES 421.29. Here, Claimant tested positive for drug use on an employer-administered drug test and thus was found ineligible under the illicit drug use provision of Section 29(1)(m). At the hearing, the only participants present were Claimant’s attorneys and the judge. Despite the employer’s lack of appearance, the judge affirmed the Agency’s finding of disqualification and held Claimant ineligible for benefits. The MCAC reversed on appeal.
DECISION: The Commission reversed the ALJ order and found Claimant not disqualified for benefits under Section 29(1)(m).
RATIONALE: The Commission found that because the employer had the burden of proof to establish misconduct, its failure to appear at Claimant’s hearing and present evidence to support a finding of misconduct failed to meet the burden of proof. Because no prima facie showing of misconduct could be established without the employer’s presence, the Commission held that the ALJ erred in affirming the Agency’s finding of misconduct. Further, Claimant had no burden of proof in this case, and had only the obligation to prosecute his appeal under Ashford. Because the employer failed to meet its burden of proof by not appearing at the hearing, and because Claimant had no burden of proof under Section 29(1)(m), the order was reversed and the Commission found Claimant not disqualified for benefits.
Digest author: Laura Page, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest updated: January 2, 2018