WASHINGTON STATE

OFFICE OF ADMINISTRATIVE HEARINGS

In the matter of: Docket No. 217748

DARRELL R SHAFFER, INITIAL ORDER

Claimant. Agency: Employment Security Department

Program: Unemployment Insurance
Agency No. 58633440

BYE: 10/23/2021 CID: 4GM99W UIO: Intrastate

IMPORTANT NOTICE: This order covers only the determination letter that was
appealed and discussed at hearing. Sometimes there are multiple determination letters
that could affect payment of benefits. If you want to appeal other determination letters,
you must file a separate appeal with the Employment Security Department for each
letter.

ORDER SUMMARY

This is a simple summary. Please read the entire decision to fully understand the
result. The right to appeal this order is explained near the end.

• The Determination of the Employment Security Department is AFFIRMED.

Hearing: This case was heard by Administrative Law Judge Molly Ray on Monday,
July 11, 2022, after notice to all interested parties.

Persons Present: DARRELL R SHAFFER, Claimant; and LORI STROMBECK,

Human Resources Manager for MOHAWK METAL COMPANY, Employer.

Exhibits: The Administrative Law Judge admitted Exhibits 1 through 57.

The purpose of the hearing was to determine:

• Whether the claimant was able to, available for, and actively seeking work in
accordance with the standards of RCW 50.20.010(1)(c), WAC 192-170-010,
WAC 192-170-050 and WAC 192-180-010.

• Whether the claimant must repay an overpayment of conditional benefits

pursuant to RCW 50.20.190 and WAC Chapter 192-220.

INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955

Docket No. 217748 Page 1
8500-ESD
 • Whether the claimant must repay an overpayment of regular benefits pursuant to
RCW 50.20.190 and WAC Chapter 192-220.

• Whether the appellant had good cause for failing to appear at a previously
scheduled hearing. WAC 192-04-185(3).

• Whether the claimant was discharged for a willful or wanton disregard of the
rights, title, and interests of the employer or a fellow employee as defined in
RCW 50.04.294(1)(a), or other misconduct pursuant to RCW 50.20.066,
voluntarily quit without good cause pursuant to RCW 50.20.050, or became
unemployed due to a lack of work.

After considering all of the evidence, the Administrative Law Judge enters the following
Findings of Fact, Conclusions of Law, and Initial Order.

FINDINGS OF FACT:

1. On September 28, 2021, the Employment Security Department issued a written

Determination Letter that denied the claimant unemployment benefits beginning
October 25, 2020 on the basis that the claimant was fired for misconduct. The
Claimant is the Appellant in this matter and filed an appeal on October 8, 2021.

2. On May 13, 2022 the Office of Administrative Hearings mailed a Notice of

Hearing to the parties at their address of record. The Notice of Hearing informed
the parties of the June 2, 2022 hearing at 11:00 a.m.

3. The claimant failed to appear at the hearing. On June 3, 2022, the assigned
Administrative Law Judge issued an Order of Dismissal (Default).

4. On June 13, 2022, the claimant filed a Motion to Vacate the Order of Dismissal
(Default).

5. The claimant received the Notice of Hearing for the June 2, 2022 hearing date.

6. The claimant accepted an additional night shift at work on June 1, 2022. The
shift ended at 3:00 a.m. on the morning of June 2, 2022.

7. The claimant set an alarm, but slept through his alarm and missed the hearing.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW:

1. The Office of Administrative Hearings has jurisdiction to hear and decide this
appeal under RCW Chapters 50.32 and 34.05.

2. In cases where an interested party is aggrieved by the entry of an Order of

Default, the party may file a Motion to Vacate pursuant to WAC 192-04-185. The
Order of Default shall be set aside if the aggrieved party shows good cause for
failing to appear or to request a postponement prior to the scheduled time for
hearing. WAC 192-04-185(3).
INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955
Docket No. 217748 Page 2
8500-ESD
 3. Good cause for failing to appear at a hearing is a situation that would effectively
prevent a reasonably prudent person from appearing. A reasonably prudent
person is an individual who uses good judgment or common sense in handling
practical matters. The actions of a person exercising common sense in a similar
situation are the guide in determining whether an individual’s actions were
reasonable. WAC 192-100-010. Although there is not a specific definition of
“good cause,” there are numerous Commissioner Decisions setting forth various
scenarios that do not constitute good cause. See In re Tracy, Empl.Sec.Comm’r
Dec.2d 804 (1989), In re Gillick, Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec. 808 (1969); see also
Graves v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 144 Wn. App. 302, 182 P.3d 1004 (2008).
Most of these decisions have one thing in common - the circumstances were
within the person’s control at the time of the non-appearance.

4. As a general rule, a claimant has an obligation to keep the Department advised

of his or her current mailing address so long as the claimant remains in claim
status. See In re Johnson, Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec. 453 (1961); In re Plank,
Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec.2d 564 (1979). The purpose is for the Department to
send information via the U.S. Postal Service. Though the online portal is used
for much communication from the Department, some communication will be sent
exclusively through the U.S. mail.

5. A presumption of receipt arises with respect to a document properly addressed

and deposited in U.S. Mail with sufficient postage affixed thereto. However, this
presumption may be overcome by evidence that the notice never was in fact
received, but mere denial of receipt may not suffice. See In re Abian,
Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec.29 900 (2005); In re Mellroth, Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec.2d
591 (1980); In re Finnigan, Empl.Sec.Comm’r Dec. 1090 (1974).

6. Negligence in handling mail does not constitute good cause. In re Groves, Empl.
Sec. Comm’r Dec.2d 374 (1978). Carelessness and forgetfulness do not
constitute good cause. In re Renz, Empl. Sec. Comm’r Dec.2d 498 (1979). Nor
does failure to fully understand the Unemployment Insurance system. In re
Thomas, Empl. Sec. Comm’r Dec.2d 818 (1990).

7. The facts in this matter establish that the claimant failed to appear for his June 2,
2022 hearing date. Accordingly, the law requires that the claimant establish some
showing of good cause for his non-appearance. While this tribunal is certainly
sympathetic to the personal circumstances confronting the claimant, the law
requires that there be some showing of good cause which would have prevented
a reasonably prudent person from appearing at the June 2, 2022 hearing date.
The facts establish that the claimant did not appear because the claimant was
asleep and had slept through his alarm. The claimant has failed to show the
existence of any factors which would have prevented a reasonably prudent
person from appearing at the hearing. Accordingly, this tribunal has no choice
but to conclude that good cause for the claimant’s late failure to appear at the
June 2, 2022 hearing does not exist.

8.
INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955
Docket No. 217748 Page 3
8500-ESD
 9. In the present case, the claimant has not established good cause for failing to
appear at the June 2, 2022 hearing. Therefore, the Motion to Vacate should be
DENIED and the Order of Dismissal (Default) entered on June 3, 2022 should be
AFFIRMED.

Now, therefore, it is ORDERED:

The determination of the Employment Security Department under appeal is AFFIRMED.

The claimant has not established good cause for failing to appear at the June 2, 2022
hearing. The Motion to Vacate is DENIED and the Order of Dismissal (Default) is
AFFIRMED.

Dated and mailed July 12, 2022, from Spokane Valley, Washington.

Molly Ray
Administrative Law Judge
Office of Administrative Hearings

INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955

Docket No. 217748 Page 4
8500-ESD
Certificate of Service

I certify that I mailed a copy of this order to each party at the address listed below,
postage prepaid, on the date stated above.

Naomi Knoll
Representative
Office of Administrative Hearings
16201 E. Indiana Avenue, Suite 5600
Spokane Valley, WA 99216

DARRELL R SHAFFER Claimant

103 NE HAZEL DELL WAY
VANCOUVER, WA 98665-8518
PORTAL DELIVERY

MOHAWK METAL COMPANY Employer

30011 LEGHORN LN
EUGENE, OR 97402

INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955

Docket No. 217748 Page 5
8500-ESD
 YOU HAVE THE RIGHT TO APPEAL

This decision becomes final unless a Petition for Review is filed with the
Commissioner's Review Office of the Employment Security Department ("Department").
If you disagree with the Administrative Law Judge's order, you may file a Petition for
Review stating the reasons why you disagree. Include the docket number(s) on your
Petition for Review. If you submit your Petition for Review late, explain why it is being
filed late. Do not write more than five (5) pages. If you failed to attend the hearing,
please tell us the reason why.

You may use the form on the following page to file your Petition for Review in writing.
You must submit your Petition for Review by mailing it to:

Commissioner's Review Office

Employment Security Department
P.O. Box 9555
Olympia, WA 98507-9555

Alternatively, you may e-file your Petition for Review by using the Department’s
eServices online. You must first create an eServices account by visiting the
Department’s website at https://secure.esd.wa.gov. If you file your Petition using the
Department’s eServices online, your submission is limited to the equivalent of five
typewritten pages.

Your Petition for Review must be postmarked or e-filed on or before August 11, 2022.

Do not file your Petition for Review by facsimile (fax).

INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955

Docket No. 217748 Page 6
8500-ESD
 PETITION FOR REVIEW OF INITIAL DECISION (APPEAL)

217748
NAME(S) (PLEASE PRINT) DOCKET NUMBER ADDITIONAL
DOCKET
NUMBER(S)

MAILING ADDRESS CITY STATE ZIP CODE

Do not file your Petition for Review by facsimile (fax) or email. Please use the
space below to state why you disagree with the Administrative Law Judge’s
order. If you failed to attend the hearing, please tell us the reason why. You may
attach up to four additional pages.

________________________________ ________________
Signature Date

Mail your Petition for Review to:

Commissioner’s Review Office

Employment Security Department
P.O. Box 9555
Olympia, Washington 98507-9555

INITIAL ORDER OAH: (800) 366-0955

Docket No. 217748 Page 7
8500-ESD