Tuxis Ohr's Fuel, Inc. v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
127 Conn. App. 739
| Conn. App. Ct. | 2011Background
- Employer Ohr's Fuel, Inc. challenged a trial court judgment upholding an administrative construction of § 31-236(a)(14) in unemployment benefits eligibility.
- Employee Aleksiewicz, a fuel oil delivery driver, had his commercial driver's license suspended for one year after a DUI off-duty arrest with a BAC of .216.
- State law requires CDL holders to maintain licenses; suspension was pursuant to § 14-44k(c).
- Employer discharged Aleksiewicz because he could no longer perform driving duties due to the CDL suspension, though misconduct occurred off duty.
- Trial court, following the review board, held that § 31-236(a)(14) did not apply because the employee's misconduct did not occur in the course of employment and no employer testing program was proven; the appeal was dismissed.
- Appellate court affirmed, concluding that § 31-236(a)(14) requires a state or federal alcohol testing program, and the record did not establish a state program.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does § 31-236(a)(14) require a state or federal alcohol testing program? | Ohr's argues statute unambiguously ties disqualification to a testing program under state or federal law. | Administrator contends the review board properly required a testing program under state or federal law and embraced the employer testing basis. | Yes; statute requires a qualifying testing program under state or federal law. |
| Can a state program be proven by the employer’s evidence of off-duty DUI and license suspension? | Employer proves disqualification via a state licensing suspension arising from off-duty conduct. | No state program evidence supports § 31-236(a)(14) applicability without an employer testing program or federal preconditions. | No; absence of a proven state program defeats applicability. |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. Somers, 294 Conn. 324 (2009) (plenary statutory construction review)
- Viera v. Cohen, 283 Conn. 412 (2007) (statutory interpretation limits and legislative intent)
- MacDermid, Inc. v. Dept. of Environmental Protection, 257 Conn. 128 (2001) (when agency interpretations of law lack prior scrutiny, no deference for pure questions of law)
- Saunders v. Firtel, 293 Conn. 515 (2009) (legislative history and statutory interpretation limits)