The New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board reversed the decision of an administrative law judge, who, after two lengthy hearings last summer, decided against my claim to extended benefits, preventing me from receiving $425 a week during this most horrific recession.
I was fired in December 2009 and it has taken until March 29, 2010 for America’s judicial system to reveal the scandal of disability harassment that occurred several years ago at my former job.
Appeal Board members Michael T. Greason and Tanya R. Daniel awarded me nearly $25,000 in retroactive benefits per a three page Notice of Decision issued on March 29, 2010. Of course, my former employer has 30 days to appeal this decision to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court, but after reading the three page FINDINGS IN FACT and OPINION of these two judges, the mental health organization for which I worked for nearly a decade will not dare take steps to push this matter further up judicial channels in an attempt to bury the matter behind the walls of federal courthouse and to prevent themselves from having to fork out so much money!
Despite the fact that I was angry the moment I was handed a pink slip, and even though I called by boss, Maria Barreto and “Evil Cunt”, I did not attempt to hide this truth from the court during heated moments of testimony last summer. Inside, I knew I would win the fight, no matt what I shouted as a ‘cripple’, but now, the Jewish Board of Family and Children’s services has egg on its many faces–.
“With respect to the claimant’s failure to participate in the November 11th audit that resulted in his November 18th suspension,” the judges wrote, “–the claimant credibly testified that he had been advised that he could have another employee substitute for him during the audit. The executive director does not dispute that this advice may have been given to the claimant. Therefore, an accommodation was made for the claimant and ignored by the employer when the claimant attempted to avail himself of the accommodation. As the claimant was told he could have a substitute, his use of a substitute and refusal to personally participate in the audit does not amount to misconduct.”
Daniel and Greason went on to scribble within in their opinion: “With respect to the claimant’s refusal to participate in the December 3rd audit, we have noted that the claimant suffers from a disability which affected his perception of the audits, Executive Director, Susan Bear, acknowledges that she knew of the claimant’s problem with the audits and the frequency of them…The director admits that two audits a month was excessive and that they would only be conducted if there was a problem with the audit. However, she also admits that there was no problem with the claimant’s department which would explain the number of audits conducted of him. Yet she ordered the additional audits.
Finally, to pardon my foul-mouth, the appeal’s court judges decided:-
“The claimant’s reaction was not unforseen. As his reaction was the result of an illness, he was not responsible for his action. For this reason his refusal to participate in the December 3rd audit does not rise to misconduct for our purposes.”
Not only am I $25,000 wealthier this month, but I proved a point– I’m not the only cheap, crazy person in the world!
To Read My Original Appeal–Click to this Article: