Johnson v. Precision Systems, Inc.
19-AA-949
| D.C. | Dec 16, 2021Background
- Sandra Johnson was terminated by Precision Systems and applied for unemployment benefits; DOES initially found her qualified for benefits.
- Precision Systems requested an OAH hearing; OAH scheduled it for September 24, 2019.
- Johnson, having a preplanned two-week international trip, requested a nine-day continuance and said she would return by October 2; she left the country before OAH ruled.
- OAH denied the continuance, held the hearing in Johnson’s absence (only the employer appeared), and the ALJ reversed DOES and denied benefits for gross misconduct.
- Johnson filed a motion for reconsideration on October 2 after returning; the ALJ denied it, finding she lacked good faith and an adequate defense and that employer would be prejudiced.
- The D.C. Court of Appeals vacated OAH’s order and remanded for a merits hearing, concluding the ALJ misread the reconsideration regulation and misapplied the Frausto standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the ALJ properly limited reconsideration to the five enumerated grounds in 1 DCMR § 2828.5 | Johnson: § 2828.5 is permissive ("including, but not limited to"); ALJ has broad authority to grant reconsideration or a new hearing | Precision: (no brief filed) implicitly relied on OAH practice denying reconsideration here | Court: ALJ erred by treating the listed grounds as exclusive; regulation is permissive and allows other bases for relief |
| Whether Johnson’s motion met the required showing for reconsideration (adequate claim/defense) | Johnson: DOES’s initial determination in her favor supplies a prima facie showing; she sought to present witnesses and rebut employer’s evidence | Precision: Employer argued (via hearing evidence) that ample proof of willful/gross misconduct existed | Court: ALJ applied too strict a standard; Frausto requires only that vacating not be futile — DOES’s ruling sufficed to meet that low burden |
| Whether the Frausto factors (actual notice, good faith, promptness, adequate defense, prejudice) were properly applied | Johnson: she had actual notice, acted promptly, had a good-faith basis for seeking continuance, and presented an adequate defense | Precision: employer relied on ALJ’s findings that Johnson acted in bad faith and that rehearing would prejudice employer | Court: ALJ’s adverse findings on good faith and adequacy lacked substantial evidence; several Frausto factors favored Johnson |
| Whether employer’s participation (or lack thereof) and other equities affect the decision to reopen | Johnson: employer’s participation at a hearing without claimant and the initial DOES determination weigh in favor of rehearing | Precision: argued evidence presented at the hearing justified final order | Court: employer’s participation and the record as a whole support remand for a full hearing; lack of employer briefing noted |
Key Cases Cited
- Littman v. Cacho, 143 A.3d 90 (D.C. 2016) (ALJ misinterpretation of authority can justify remand)
- Frausto v. U.S. Dep’t of Com., 926 A.3d 151 (D.C. 2007) (motion-for-reconsideration standard; movant need not show likelihood of success — only that reopening is not futile)
- Nuyen v. Luna, 884 A.2d 650 (D.C. 2005) (Rule 60(b) factors used to analyze reconsideration requests)
- District of Columbia v. Stokes, 785 A.2d 666 (D.C. 2001) (misinterpretation of governing law can warrant reversal)
- Kidd Int’l Home Care, Inc. v. Prince, 917 A.2d 1083 (D.C. 2007) (claimant’s failure to participate can weigh against relief; context matters)
- Wylie v. Glenncrest, 143 A.3d 73 (D.C. 2016) (actual notice inquiry includes whether nonappearance resulted from deliberate neglect)
- Rhea v. Designmark Serv., Inc., 942 A.2d 651 (D.C. 2008) (employer non-participation can support vacating an adverse OAH decision)