Recently, Attorney Murphy’s client, a former branch manager of a bank, received a favorable unemployment benefits decision after a highly contentious administrative hearing. The bank terminated Attorney Murphy’s client due to an alleged workplace violation and argued the client should not be entitled to benefits.
Attorney Murphy quickly focused on his client’s 25 years experience in the banking industry to dispel with many of the bank’s assertions. Then during cross examination, Attorney Murphy took aim at the bank’s weakest position by questioning the bank representative about its internal investigation of the case. Attorney Murphy knew that the internal investigation was flawed because it failed to produce a scintilla of evidence supporting the termination. Indeed, the unemployment examiner concluded that the bank did not provide sufficient evidence to conclude any policies were violated.
Attorney Murphy is pleased that his client was able to find some recourse in the fact that the bank had no answer, defense, or justification for his termination. Hart v. Sovereign Bank (2014).