Bernard v. Unemp. Comp. Rev. Comm.
2012 Ohio 958
Ohio Ct. App.
2012

Background

  • Claudia Bernard was discharged from The Barry and Patricia Wakeman Educational Foundation in 2009.
  • Bernard applied for unemployment benefits for 2009 with ODJFS in January 2010; benefits were denied.
  • UCRC affirmed the ODJFS decision after a hearing; Bernard challenged the decision in trial court.
  • Base period wage calculation: 2009 base period required average weekly wage of at least $213; Bernard's wages would be $125 without FSA.
  • Bernard's compensation included $6,520 cash and $10,800 placed in a pre‑tax flexible spending account (FSA) under a cafeteria plan.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Whether FSA contributions are remuneration under the unemployment law Bernard: FSA amounts are remuneration. ODJFS: FSA contributions are excluded from remuneration under FUTA section 3306(b)(5)(G). Yes; FSA amounts are not remuneration; exclusion applies.
Whether the UCRC reasonably interpreted the statutory scheme Bernard argues strict construction favors eligibility. ODJFS's interpretation is reasonable and should be deferred to. Yes; the UCRC decision aligns with a reasonable administrative interpretation.

Key Cases Cited

  • Tzangeos, Plakas, & Mannos v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 73 Ohio St.3d 694 (1995-Ohio-206) (standard of review for administrative agency decisions)
  • Fegatelli v. Ohio Bur. of Emp. Serv., 146 Ohio App.3d 275 (2001-Ohio-) (statutory interpretation and review framework)
  • Elyria Foundry Co. v. Pub. Util. Comm., 118 Ohio St.3d 269 (2008-Ohio-2230) (deference to agency interpretations)
  • Sandusky Dock Corp. v. Jones, 106 Ohio St.3d 274 (2005-Ohio-4982) (deference to agency's interpretation of legislative scheme)
  • Northwestern Ohio Bldg. & Constr. Trades Council v. Conrad, 92 Ohio St.3d 282 (2001-Ohio-190) (administrative interpretation and statutory construction principles)
  • Maitland v. Ford Motor Co., 103 Ohio St.3d 463 (2004-Ohio-5717) (deference to agency interpretation in statutory context)
  • Proctor v. Kardassilaris, 115 Ohio St.3d 71 (2007-Ohio-4838) (legislative intent in statutory interpretation)
Read the full case