Recently, two clients represented by Justin Murphy succeeded in their unemployment hearings after being initially denied benefits by the Department of Unemployment Assistance (DUA). The DUA had rejected their claims based on false information provided by their employers about the reasons for their separation from employment. As a result, Mr. Murphy is pleased to have successfully advocated for his clients in two contentious hearings related to their unemployment benefits.
Case 1. Signed Confession Thrown Out
In the first case, Mr. Murphy’s client, a former cashier at a major pharmacy retail chain, was terminated for allegedly stealing $10.00 that a customer left behind at the cash register. The cashier denied she did anything wrong and asked for proof during her interrogation by a loss prevention officer. No proof was ever provided but nevertheless, the client signed a confession admitting she stole the money. Thereafter, the employer terminated the cashier.
Mr. Murphy sat down with the client and was shocked to hear that the loss prevention officer accused the client of theft for over an hour in the back storage room of the store. During this hour-long ordeal, the loss prevention officer berated the cashier and made her feel like she had no rights; he made her feel like she was less than human. After what seemed like days, the cashier wrote a confession and signed it, thinking that doing so would be the only way she could keep her job. This proved incorrect and she was fired. When Mr. Murphy heard this account, he assured his client he would do everything in his power to help her.
Thereafter, Mr. Murphy represented the cashier at her unemployment hearing. Mr. Murphy established that the employer failed to present proof that his client stole any money. Moreover, Mr. Murphy established that the loss prevention officer’s hour-long interrogation amounted to undue influence and duress on the cashier which forced her to sign a confession. Thereafter, the unemployment hearing officer concluded the employer did not prove the employee actually committed theft.
Case 2. Exposing Sexual Harassment in the Workplace
In the second case, Mr. Murphy battled an employer in another unemployment hearing on behalf of his client, a former store manager of a large retail clothing store. The unemployment office denied the client’s claim for benefits because the employer said the client abandoned her job.
The client is a divorced, female and mother who needed her job to put food on the table. The last thing this woman would ever do is abandon her job. Mr. Murphy argued that the owner of the clothing store sexually harassed the client for years. Mr. Murphy presented three former employees who testified the owner is known for gross behavior in the workplace. The employer’s lawyer aggressively attempted to discredit the client, but she maintained her composure and dignity throughout the hearing. After nearly a day of questioning, the unemployment office agreed with Mr. Murphy and concluded that the client did not abandon her job; but instead, the employer’s actions amounted to terminating her.
Now that Mr. Murphy has secured his client’s unemployment benefits, he is moving forward with a wrongful termination lawsuit based on sexual harassment and illegal retaliation against the owner/employer.
