2019 IL App (1st) 180645
Ill. App. Ct.2019Background
- Matlock worked as an individual provider for DHS's Home Services Program from Feb 2017 to Aug 2017 and filed for unemployment benefits after his last reported day of work, Aug 6, 2017.
- DHS protested, alleging Matlock voluntarily abandoned his job and did not notify the agency of a reason for separation; initial claim form listed "Laid-Off (Lack of work)."
- IDES adjudicator denied benefits, finding Matlock left voluntarily because he was not being paid and failed to prove nonpayment.
- At a referee telephone hearing DHS did not appear; Matlock testified he stopped reporting because he was not being paid amid state budget/payment delays and later submitted a letter (unsigned then signed) stating he was terminated due to lack of work.
- The referee and Board found Matlock ineligible under 820 ILCS 405/601(A) (voluntarily left without good cause), concluding his nonpayment claim lacked credibility; the trial court affirmed.
- The appellate majority reversed and remanded for factfinding, holding the referee never made a definitive factual finding on whether Matlock left voluntarily or was involuntarily separated and noting the record lacked a DHS wage report the referee referenced. Justice Lavin dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Matlock voluntarily left employment or was involuntarily separated | Matlock says he did not quit; he stopped reporting because DHS/state failed to pay him or he was terminated for lack of work | DHS says Matlock abandoned/resigned and employer reported wages; claimant failed to prove nonpayment | Remanded: Board/referee made no clear factual finding whether separation was voluntary or involuntary; factfinding hearing required |
| Whether claimant carried burden to prove eligibility (nonpayment) | Matlock offered testimony and a signed letter stating termination for lack of work | State contends claimant produced no proof of nonpayment; burden rests on claimant | Not decided on merits; appellate court remanded for determination and noted missing DHS wage report in record |
| Whether administrative hearing procedures were adequate | Matlock contends new signed DHS document should have been considered; trial court barred new evidence on review | State relies on administrative record and litigative posture; trial court correctly followed prohibition on new evidence on judicial review | Court observed the referee referenced a DHS report not in the record and directed the Board to secure evidentiary factfinding to ensure a fair hearing |
| Whether appellate brief deficiencies warranted dismissal/forfeiture | Matlock filed pro se and brief lacked required citations | State argued Rule 341 noncompliance forfeits claims | Court declined to dismiss for procedural deficiencies and reviewed appeal on merits because record was short and appellee briefed the issues |
Key Cases Cited
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (agency factual findings reviewed deferentially; mixed questions standard)
- In re Detention of Powell, 217 Ill. 2d 123 (striking briefs is a harsh sanction; review may proceed despite procedural defects)
- Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation, 153 Ill. 2d 76 (fair hearing requirements: opportunity to be heard, cross-examine, impartiality)
- Jackson v. Department of Labor, Board of Review, 168 Ill. App. 3d 494 (Board resolves credibility and weight of evidence)
- Acevedo v. Department of Employment Security, 324 Ill. App. 3d 768 (definition of good cause; substantial unilateral change may render employment unsuitable)
- Jones v. Department of Employment Security, 276 Ill. App. 3d 281 (termination for lack of work is involuntary separation)
- Anderson v. Human Rights Comm'n, 314 Ill. App. 3d 35 (administrative findings must be based on admitted evidence)