Joanne C. Grimmer VS Executive Director, Louisiana Workforce Commission, & City of Baton Rouge, Parish of East Baton Rouge (Library)

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

I ATED NO llES1G FOR P T IO1 JBLICAT STATF OF LOUISIANA COURT OF nPPEAL FIKST C I RCUI 20 L2 CA I 675 1L N O C CiR11VIMER VERSUS XGCUTNE DIR TOUISIANA WORKFORCL COMMISSION L CTOR nND CI OF BATON ROUGF PARISH OF EAS 3ATON ROUGE fY I RARY LIB Judgment Rendered i APR 2 6 2013 4 e ED I TR APPEAI FROM DlS COURT UDICIAL ITIJ NINETEEN HL CT lN AND L fHE CJF EA5T I OR PAKISH 01 1 ROUGE t E 1 i1 t S OF LOUISIANA 1 E 3ER DOCI NUM 01 1 603 DIVISION SECTION 24 3LE HONORA R MICI CALDWELL AEL x Paul Ray Dry Attorney for Plaintiff Appellant i Bato LZoug Louisiana ioanne C Grvmner llanetle L Cilkes Attorney for Defendant Appellee Baton Administrator Gurt f ysink Rouge Louisiana Louisiana Workfor ceCommission Kim L Brooks Attorney for Defendant Appellee l3aloil City ofBaton Kouge Parish of e Rou Louisiana East Baton Rouge Libi ary r KK es u v eQ GFORL KUHN PI 1AND I TIGRL W icDONALD 1 JJ L ti Mcll01 J is l I is an appeal of a judgment by the listrict court affirming a decision by tbe I Workforcc Commi Cotnmission Office of Uncmployment ouisiana 5ioi Insurance that was al by t Buard ol lZeview and the Nineteenth Judicial fiirmcd e istrict ICour Por tl following reasons we affinn e Plaintiif Joanne C Grimmer worked for City of Baton Rouge Parish of ast faton Rouge Pai Libi tor approximately ni years from September ish aiy ie 2Q01 to February 2010 Grimmer siriitial employment with the library was paTt time bu she became a full employee on September 10 200 L She said that time slle was asked by tha library director to change to full because hei work was time so go and shc recei positive evaluations of her work throughout her d cd loynienY eizi The pari5h library systern nderwent considerable changES throughout s Grimrner employment Eventually she was so dissatisfied with her w rking cQnditions that she resigned She gave one day verbal notice of her decision to it qti she gave no written notice Iter last day of employment was on or about ary Febn 26 2010 n July 2010 Gnmtner ftled a claim for uiletnployment bcriefits wl was denied icli The determivation that her claim fot benefits was d deni gave the reason as You left your employment for personal reasons Your leaving was nol for bood cause attributable to a substantial change made to the eirapiuyment by tFie empfoyek See R The determination etter also 1 1601 23 S ad ised that the right to ap would be lost if the appeal was not filed by fax or eal ked postmai if inailed within fifteen days of September 1 2010 which was the date tl letier was mailed to her e Plaiiriif7 indicates she vorked lhrough February 27 2010 Iiowever other documents in the record K sho her date vf employment through 26 2016 ltebnzary 2 ouisian Revise tatutc 3t fif day time period 1 A vi 1629 ra leeil les during whicli an appca niay b limel file Urirnmer d saUpeal was filed online on Octolier S 110 nithougki siie stateti she Filed an appeal earlier she did not have a copy or aiiy otlier roof of it Tl hearing to revic thc correctness of t denial e v te of cli for une efits was canducted by tclephone confeeence ity ibi ntbei ym li K 1 on lanu4iry 3 20l 1 In addition to the administrative law judge those taking part ere ti e rn Jo C immer Ci and a enlative repre of the ernployer he hearing prucedure alloe tivitnesses t apE allows each arty to question testimony and s ear to mal statements e At tl hea the administiative law judge reviewed tl e ng e inioa llc had re gthe matte nd qucstioned the claimal ardi r tparticularly gt lir ai e r date of her appeal and the reasons for resigning from her job He cceived infonnation from Grinuiaer in response to his questions and allowed each i arty tv q the other and to n statements zestion iake t the co of the clusion gtl earii e l administrative law judge advised the parties that they would receive a y iis co of ldecisiori vithin a wec or sz and dianked them foi participating k On Jartuary 7 2011 t lecision of the adrninistrative law judge was mailed lc he opirvo notcd thaY I R 23 provides that within fifteet 15 days after a S 1629 norificatiori was given or mailed to a clairnant an appeal may be t71ed either by mail as evidenced by the postmarkc date or by delieering the appeal to the cl propriate atribunal I hearing estalilished thal ir the letter denying he he ailing of ihe claim For unen ls Septen I 2010 and the appeal was iploymenl enefits w ber a lcd vi Ociober 5 2010 Therefore tllc appeal filed considerably after the fifteen iays Jlowe by law was considered u filed and disniissed S itimely ibsequently icr irn peala at Ga a tl decisian to ttie Board c Revie fv e 3 rraiited Grinuiler st for appeal antl affirmecl the Appeal Ti i ard sreyue s ribimal 1 decisioi Il issued iks llecision and Order which stated the scope oP the s rcl Bo v evie z the issues presented the findings oi fact and the conclusions of lati It delern th thie clain origival appeal oI the determination of insd t s aait qualifiicalion di for benefits was t t also noted that appeal delays in ely mtin zcnf tsalio loyi pei s l irdin unc c procc are pere and cani be revived tive n ot e onc ihey havc cla citin iluzrlr v I set srcuza ei r lzt o Po c Li Co 98 1007 a I App 5 Cir i35 So 44 1999 2d Grimmer iled fi7r judicial review of tlie E decision with the s oard nth tee Nii Judicial Dist Louisiana Kevised Siatule 23 establishes the icL I3 1634 district court scope oC jurisdiction s as follows In ai proceeding under tliis y cliun Sc the I of the board of revie as to the facts if supported by gs ndii u sufficient evidence aiY in tlle absenc of fraud shall be conclusive and the 3 dictiorl i jlii of the court shall bc co to questions of law fined Thcrefore the e forc issi l tl court wa whcther tr 13oai decisioti to ait7rm the dis of e d s nissal e inCs eal tl claiin a to Lhe npp l als ribunal because it was untimely was supported by suf evidence and coreect as a matter of law icient he district court held a hearing in this tuatLer on April 2 2012 The court l indicated that a number f issues wea rai in brief by Grimmer and noted that ed hcr c fvr bcnefits was denied for two reasons aim One that it was not timely kilecl and tivo that she voluntarily resigned her position Reviewing the evidence regarding U fililag of the appeal lie courl noted that whiie Gri testified at e nmer her hearing t sl assun she Clled c the appeal foi7n and mailed it back to iat e d ut lhe omrnis n a day or t hc had no i shc did t also noted iort ithin oof triat tiiat the la is clear tif ac a is not rimcly f71ed the claim is percrnpted and iat peaE ed explai that mea ti ll also reviewed the issues raised by the tit as st orever Tt claimant tiff i pl The cow found t alter it l reviewed the facts the at ad tcstimony aiid everytt in tl administrative record there was evidence to ing ie ort sup the nding of the adminish law judge and of the Board of Review ative irding Re the questions of law the cow addressed the plaintiff constitutional t s 4 ar7d f videialiary cr ar Ii tliat tli cl due E rights had lteniiqns i G t s iimanl rocess een rneL It also suw no basis in Grimtner l smauy arguments attacking the validity the of dccision and affu the decision of the Co Grimmer objectcd mcd mission at tl ihc rncz of her claina had ncvcr beeil addressed its e Tl court answered tllat its it findit thal tl evideuce supported tlac ruling lhat the clain was filed late so thcrc e a s wa no oeed to et t t n ie erits Haviri thor reviewed th record jurispt ai law concerning hly u d i5 p e tk a itind nt error in ihe eLstrict court review conclusions or judgment al s in this matler nccvrdingly the appeal is afiirmed Norrnally costs of an aUpeal are assessed against either or both of tl parties e Iowcvcr La 1Z 13 exempts thc Louisiana Warkforce Coinmission S 5112 j I ti bci ast or a co costs in a judicial roceedi ttlle provisions of ig 1y u lg der a S 1fi34 I K 23 Likewise La R 23 excmpts a claimant fronl being S 169 sed asse courl costs uriless a court deterrnines that the proceedings foi judieial N revie are frivolous We made no such finding Thus eourt costs are tlot assessed tcitlicr pacty in t appeai air as ai Ai ll MI I

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.