Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Tonya Frazier

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 12/07/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o formal r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , A l a b a m a 3 6 1 0 4 - 3 7 4 1 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110467 Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v. Tonya F r a z i e r Appeal from Mobile C i r c u i t (CV-09-001220) Court PITTMAN, J u d g e . The Alabama Department") Court Department o f I n d u s t r i a l appeals ('the t r i a l Department's order from court") R e l a t i o n s ("the a judgment o f t h e M o b i l e i n so f a r as i t s e t s Circuit aside the r e q u i r i n g Tonya F r a z i e r t o r e i m b u r s e t h e 2110467 D e p a r t m e n t f o r an o v e r p a y m e n t o f employment c o m p e n s a t i o n . reverse and remand. Frazier sought unemployment compensation after v o l u n t a r i l y l e a v i n g her job at a f a s t - f o o d restaurant. the We Department i s s u e d a final ruling Before on t h e m a t t e r , F r a z i e r r e c e i v e d $2,421 i n unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n . The D e p a r t m e n t initially denied compensation. eventually, Frazier's Frazier the request appealed Department from issued a for that unemployment decision, final and, administrative r u l i n g d e n y i n g F r a z i e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n and o r d e r i n g F r a z i e r t o r e i m b u r s e t h e $2,421 p r e v i o u s l y paid to her. Having exhausted her a d m i n i s t r a t i v e remedies, F r a z i e r thereafter appealed following a t r i a l to the t r i a l on t h e m e r i t s court. In October 2011, of the case, the t r i a l court e n t e r e d a judgment a f f i r m i n g t h e Department's d e c i s i o n d e n y i n g F r a z i e r ' s r e q u e s t f o r unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n , b u t i t r u l e d t h a t t h e $2,421 i n p a y m e n t s p r e v i o u s l y made was n o t due t o be repaid filed t o t h e D e p a r t m e n t . I n November a postjudgment judgment t o t h e e x t e n t motion that to amend 2011, t h e D e p a r t m e n t the trial i t had n o t r e q u i r e d Frazier to r e p a y t h e $2,421 i n unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n she h a d 2 court's already 2110467 r e c e i v e d . F o l l o w i n g the t r i a l c o u r t ' s d e n i a l of t h a t motion i n J a n u a r y 2012, The on f a c t s of the case are u n d i s p u t e d , appeal require the Department appealed. i s whether Frazier the to trial repay c o m p e n s a t i o n p a i d t o h e r . We, the t r i a l court the and the s o l e i s s u e erred $2,421 i n d e c l i n i n g to in unemployment t h e r e f o r e , "'must d e t e r m i n e i f c o u r t m i s a p p l i e d the law t o the u n d i s p u t e d t h u s , " ' t h e s t a n d a r d o f r e v i e w i s de n o v o , ' " and we trial a f f o r d the c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t no p r e s u m p t i o n o f c o r r e c t n e s s . A l a b a m a Dep't o f Revenue v. J i m Beam B r a n d s Co., 11 So. (Ala. Dredging, Civ. App. A l a b a m a Dep't o f also facts'"; State 2008) (quoting Revenue, 855 So. Dep't o f Revenue v. (Ala. C i v . App. (Ala. 2d 513 Garner, 859-60 L.L.C. (Ala. 2003)); 812 So. statutory Department argues authority Department's order to Ex p a r t e Graham, 702 that the trial aside that 2d set r e q u i r i n g repayment. In court see 380, 382 2d 1215 c o n t r a r y t o A l a . Code 1975, "(1) Any benefits lacked the portion of the support of that argument, the Department argues t h a t the t r i a l was So. v. 1997). The 2 0 0 1 ) , and Bean 3d 858, court's action § 25-4-145(c), which p r o v i d e s : i n d i v i d u a l who has r e c e i v e d any sum o r payments u n d e r t h i s c h a p t e r w h i l e 3 as any 2110467 c o n d i t i o n s f o r t h e r e c e i p t o f b e n e f i t s o r payment i m p o s e d b y t h i s c h a p t e r were n o t f u l f i l l e d b y s u c h p e r s o n , o r w h i l e he was d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m r e c e i p t o f benefits; or by reason of nondisclosure or m i s r e p r e s e n t a t i o n by him or a n o t h e r o f a m a t e r i a l f a c t ( i r r e s p e c t i v e o f w h e t h e r s u c h n o n d i s c l o s u r e was known o r f r a u d u l e n t ) o r f o r any o t h e r r e a s o n c a u s i n g him to receive benefits to which he was not e n t i t l e d , s h a l l be r e q u i r e d t o r e p a y s u c h sum i n c a s h o r b y o f f s e t a g a i n s t any f u t u r e b e n e f i t s i f payable or a combination of both. " ( 2 ) Such p e r s o n s h a l l be p r o m p t l y n o t i f i e d o f t h e determination of overpayment and the reasons t h e r e f o r . U n l e s s s u c h p e r s o n , w i t h i n 15 c a l e n d a r days immediately following the date such n o t i f i c a t i o n was m a i l e d t o h i s l a s t known a d d r e s s , files an a p p e a l f r o m such d e t e r m i n a t i o n , such d e t e r m i n a t i o n s h a l l be f i n a l . Any a p p e a l t h e r e f r o m p u r s u a n t t o t h e p r o v i s i o n s o f t h i s c h a p t e r s h a l l be l i m i t e d s o l e l y t o the overpayment i s s u e . "(3) I f the i n d e b t e d n e s s i s not p a i d by such p e r s o n w i t h i n 30 c a l e n d a r d a y s a f t e r t h e d e t e r m i n a t i o n has become f i n a l , t h e d i r e c t o r s h a l l p r o c e e d t o e f f e c t collection of the overpayment and shall have a v a i l a b l e t o him a l l c i v i l a c t i o n s a v a i l a b l e t o h i m under the laws of t h i s state to c o l l e c t the o v e r p a y m e n t as w e l l as t h o s e p r o v i s i o n s c o n t a i n e d i n s u b s e c t i o n (b) o f S e c t i o n 25-4-134 a p p l y i n g t o t h e c o l l e c t i o n of c o n t r i b u t i o n s . " Id. On t h e o t h e r hand, F r a z i e r c o n t e n d s t h a t t h e t r i a l although not expressly authorized to a d m i n i s t r a t i v e order r e q u i r i n g reimbursement for o v e r p a y m e n t s u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, 4 set court, aside an t o the Department § 25-4-145(c), i s not 2110467 e x p r e s s l y p r o h i b i t e d from doing so; F r a z i e r a s s e r t s t h a t trial i t s general Ala. court properly Code 1975, court's exercised a u t h o r i t y under § 12-11-31(1), which provides equitable j u r i s d i c t i o n t h a t the extends to " c i v i l exercising its tribunals." the to set Department determination the further t h a t a u t h o r i t y , the determination reimburse Frazier was d i r e c t o r of trial aside for the asserts order in reached r e q u i r i n g her overpayment in other that, court properly the trial actions w h i c h a p l a i n and a d e q u a t e remedy i s n o t p r o v i d e d i n t h e judicial the because to that c o n s i s t e n t w i t h the g u i d e l i n e s under which the Department may exercise discretion to waive the requirement t o repay overpayments s e t f o r t h i n A l a . A d m i n . Code, r . 480-4-4-.07 are, court therefore, presented with had the a u t h o r i t y to reviewing the final turn, raises exercises the broader the apply decision equitable administrative (Dep't o f of Indus. R e l a t i o n s ) . i s s u e whether an equitable the question the trial remedy while Department, whether jurisdiction a when We which, trial in court reviewing determinations. In t h i s case, the t r i a l court concluded that Frazier was d i s q u a l i f i e d f r o m r e c e i v i n g unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n , j u s t as 5 2110467 t h e D e p a r t m e n t had c o n c l u d e d . The t r i a l c o u r t t h e n went a s t e p f u r t h e r , h o w e v e r , and a d d r e s s e d t h e e q u i t y o f t h e that Frazier pay received, electing determine whether back manner not the unemployment Under aside trial that court, by she i n doing review had already requirement. A l a . Code Department's Ala. Code 1975, compensation disqualified reimburse compensation so, 1975, of § an We must acted i n a 25-4-145(c), application for compensation. unemployment avenue the set contemplated governing Section to the requirement from the 25-4-145(c)(1), who is receiving Department 25-4-145(c)(2) through § which later such a payee determined compensation amount provides the disqualified party may be from or she or she relieved be "shall" the he he to of received. an the repayment r e q u i r e m e n t ; t h a t s u b s e c t i o n s e t s f o r t h i n s t r u c t i o n s for a p p e a l i n g from the Department's o r d e r t o reimburse i t . subsection appealing further from the provides that Department's a order disqualified with The party respect to the r e p a y m e n t r e q u i r e m e n t must s e e k r e v i e w o f t h e o r d e r as t o t h a t issue denial in a of manner his separate or her from that application 6 of the for Department's unemployment 2110467 c o m p e n s a t i o n ; h o w e v e r , u n d e r A l a . Code 1975, § 2 5 - 4 - 1 4 5 ( c ) ( 2 ) , any appeal limited Thus, of a solely the Department order compelling repayment is t o w h e t h e r t h e o v e r p a y m e n t was d e m o n s t r a t e d . Department's denial of an application for unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n and t h e D e p a r t m e n t ' s r e q u i r e m e n t t o r e p a y an o v e r p a y m e n t a r e s u b j e c t t o s e p a r a t e We review. note t h a t § 25-4-145(d)(1) v e s t s the d i r e c t o r of the Department w i t h the a u t h o r i t y t o waive the r e q u i r e m e n t t h a t a d i s q u a l i f i e d p a r t y r e p a y c o m p e n s a t i o n he o r she has Just as t h e l e g i s l a t u r e issues of b e n e f i t language vesting has drawn entitlement a distinction and set between overpayment, to authority aside received. the a the express repayment requirement e x c l u s i v e l y i n the d i r e c t o r i n d i c a t e s t h a t whether a payee should reimbursement be granted of a b e n e f i t decided i n the f i r s t relief from overpayment an order requiring i s a question i n s t a n c e by t h e d i r e c t o r t o be i n h i s or her discretion. I n l i g h t o f t h e i n t e n t e x p r e s s e d i n A l a . Code 1975, § 25¬ 4-145, t o v e s t i n t h e d i r e c t o r t h e p r i m a r y d u t y o f a s s e s s i n g w h e t h e r a r e p a y m e n t o r d e r s h o u l d be w a i v e d , t h e t r i a l c o u r t i n t h i s case a c t e d o u t s i d e i t s d i s c r e t i o n by p u r p o r t i n g t o waive 7 2110467 Frazier's obligation overpayment. the issues t o reimburse t h e Department F r a z i e r ' s appeal to the t r i a l whether she was f o r the court presented from receiving disqualified b e n e f i t s a n d w h e t h e r she h a d a d u t y t o r e p a y b e n e f i t s she h a d been p a i d b e f o r e See i t was d e t e r m i n e d t h a t she was d i s q u a l i f i e d . § 25-4-95 a n d § 2 5 - 4 - 1 4 5 ( c ) ( 2 ) . Further, the statute upon which Frazier relies, which g i v e s t h e t r i a l c o u r t e q u i t a b l e j u r i s d i c t i o n when " a p l a i n a n d adequate remedy i s not provided in the other judicial t r i b u n a l s , " A l a . Code 1975, § 1 2 - 1 1 - 3 1 ( 1 ) , does n o t c o n f e r any a d d i t i o n a l power upon t h e t r i a l court i n this s e t t i n g , where it i s e x e r c i s i n g a p p e l l a t e j u r i s d i c t i o n o n l y i n an a r e a where an a d m i n i s t r a t i v e agency has a l r e a d y acted: "A f u n d a m e n t a l c o n c e p t o f j u d i c i a l r e v i e w o f administrative action i s that i t i s a limited r e v i e w , d e l i n e a t e d by s t a t u t e and c o u r t - e s t a b l i s h e d standards which r e l a t e t o the nature of the issues o r q u e s t i o n s open t o j u d i c i a l r e v i e w . ... " ' I t i s w e l l - s e t t l e d that courts of e q u i t y , i n t h e absence o f f r a u d o r gross abuse, w i l l n o t i n t e r f e r e w i t h t h e e x e r c i s e of d i s c r e t i o n by a d m i n i s t r a t i v e boards i n the d e t e r m i n a t i o n o f t h e n e c e s s i t y and r e q u i r e m e n t s o f p u b l i c a c c o m p l i s h m e n t , much l e s s c o n t r o l t h e judgment o f such boards i n respect to matters w i t h i n the t e c h n i c a l f i e l d o f t h e i r d u t i e s and powers.'" 8 2110467 Custred v. J e f f e r s o n Cnty., 360 So. 2d 285, 289 (Ala. 1978) ( q u o t i n g C a r s o n C a d i l l a c C o r p . v. C i t y o f B i r m i n g h a m , 232 A l a . 312, 317, The 167 So. 794, 798 (1936)). record reveals that, i n this case, the trial court l i k e l y sympathized with F r a z i e r ; although F r a z i e r voluntarily l e f t h e r employment, h e r u n f o r t u n a t e c i r c u m s t a n c e s at the undoubtedly l e f t her w i t h l i t t l e quit her job. Department's Presumably, ruling compensation but set o r no the choices other than trial court to d i s q u a l i f y F r a z i e r aside the time repayment from affirmed to the unemployment requirement in an a t t e m p t t o g i v e F r a z i e r some r e l i e f . Though t h e t r i a l court's j u d g m e n t may § 145(d), r e f l e c t n o b l e i n t e n t i o n s , A l a . Code 1975, provides t h a t the d i r e c t o r , the d i s c r e t i o n to c o n f e r the type not the t r i a l 25-4- court, of r e l i e f given to has Frazier here. We reverse the d e c i s i o n of the t r i a l c o u r t i n so f a r as i t r e v e r s e d the Department's order r e q u i r i n g reimbursement of the overpayment, enter a judgment and we remand t h e a f f i r m i n g the cause for that court to Department's a d m i n i s t r a t i v e d e t e r m i n a t i o n s . Our j u d g m e n t i s , h o w e v e r , w i t h o u t p r e j u d i c e t o F r a z i e r ' s r i g h t t o p r o p e r l y request the d i r e c t o r , pursuant 9 to 2110467 § 25-4-145(d), t o r e v i e w and c o n s i d e r h e r o b l i g a t i o n t o repay the Department's overpayment. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. B r y a n , Thomas a n d Moore, J J . , c o n c u r . Thompson, P . J . , c o n c u r s i n the result, without 10 writing.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.