[CASE FILE ITEM: California EDD administrative appeal decision letter, Case No. EDD-2024-90432.]
The San Mateo County Human Services Agency occupied a low building off Highway 101 in Belmont, fifteen minutes from Redwood City if you didn’t count the time it took to find parking. Jeff counted the time it took to find parking. He always did. He found a space in the overflow lot and walked across asphalt that still held yesterday’s rain in shallow depressions.
Inside, the lobby smelled like industrial cleaner and old carpet. A ticket dispenser stood near the entrance. He pulled number C-47. The screen above the service windows currently displayed B-89. He sat in a plastic chair bolted to the floor in rows of five. The fluorescent lights overhead had the same flicker frequency as the lights in the public works basement.
Twenty-two people ahead of him. He had brought a folder with his employment records, his termination notice, and a printed timeline of his sixteen years with Matthers Seismic. He opened the folder on his lap and reviewed the documentation. Everything was in order.
The woman at window three had worked there long enough to have a framed photo of a dog taped to her monitor. She took his intake form without comment. He had filled it out in blue ink, printed clearly, included his employee ID number from memory.
“Reason for separation?” she asked.
“Termination,” Jeff said. “Disputed.”
She typed without looking at the keyboard. Above her, mounted in the corner where the wall met the ceiling, a small dome camera recorded the transaction. Standard Axis Communications P3225-LVE. He recognized the profile.
“You’ll receive a determination letter in seven to ten business days,” she said. “If your former employer contests the claim, there may be a hearing.”
“They’ll contest it,” Jeff said.
She looked at him for the first time. “Then you’ll receive notice about the hearing.”
He nodded. He had, he supposed, expected this. The system had procedures for disputed claims. He had read the procedures.
The determination letter arrived in nine business days.
NOTICE OF DETERMINATION Claim No.: 4582-RR-09847 Claimant: Jeff Alan Matthers
Your claim for Unemployment Insurance benefits has been reviewed. Based on information provided by your former employer, you are not eligible for benefits at this time.
REASON FOR DENIAL: Discharge for misconduct connected with work. California Unemployment Insurance Code Section 1256 defines misconduct as a substantial violation of an employer’s reasonable expectations. Your employer has documented the following:
- Refusal to comply with mandatory digital workflow system (Buildsafe Pro) after written directive and training (August 14, August 21, September 3)
- Unauthorized removal of company property (seismic monitoring equipment valued at $4,200) on September 7
- Insubordinate communication via company messaging system, including statement to supervisor: “This app is dumb as rocks and so is anyone who thinks it replaces twenty years of knowing what a building sounds like when you tap it”
These actions constitute willful disregard of employer interests.
YOUR RIGHT TO APPEAL: You may appeal this determination within 30 days by calling the number below or filing online. If you appeal, a hearing will be scheduled with an Administrative Law Judge.
Jeff read the letter twice. Then he opened his laptop and filed the appeal. The online form had a text box labeled “Reason for Appeal (optional, 500 characters maximum).” He typed for six minutes before realizing he had exceeded the character limit by a factor of four. He deleted everything and wrote:
The termination was not for misconduct. I maintained established safety protocols that the new workflow system could not replicate. The equipment removal was authorized under previous policy. I am appealing the miscategorization.
He submitted the form. The confirmation page said a hearing would be scheduled within 21 days.
The hearing officer called at 10:15 a.m. on a Tuesday. Jeff was at the kitchen table with his folder open, his timeline printed, his notes organized by date.
“Mr. Matthers, I’ve reviewed the case file. Your employer states that you refused to use a required software system and removed equipment without authorization. Is that accurate?”
“The software system was inadequate,” Jeff said. “It couldn’t assess structural issues that require manual testing. I was maintaining standards.”
“Did your employer provide training on the software?”
“Yes.”
“Did your employer issue written directives requiring its use?”
“Yes, but - "
“And did you remove seismic monitoring equipment from the worksite?”
“I loaded my truck on a Saturday. That was standard practice for twenty years. The equipment goes where I go.”
“Was it standard practice under the new management?”
Jeff paused. “The new management had been in place for four months.”
“So the policy had changed.”
“The policy was wrong.”
There was a pause on the line. Not a thoughtful pause. A clerical one. The sound of someone checking a box.
“Mr. Matthers, I understand you disagreed with the new procedures. But your employer has the right to set workplace policies. Your refusal to follow those policies, regardless of your professional judgment, constitutes misconduct under the UI Code. I’m upholding the denial.”
“I didn’t refuse out of negligence,” Jeff said. “I refused because the system was unsafe.”
“Did you file a formal safety complaint?”
He hadn’t. He had assumed his professional judgment was the complaint.
“You’ll receive the written decision in five to seven business days,” the hearing officer said. “You have the right to appeal to the California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, but I should tell you that second-level appeals are rarely successful in misconduct cases. Thank you for your time.”
The line went dead.
The written decision arrived six days later. Jeff read it standing at the kitchen counter. It used the phrase “not eligible at this time” three times. He folded the letter along its original creases and placed it in a manila folder labeled EMPLOYMENT - DISPUTE. The folder already contained his termination notice, his intake form, his timeline, and his printed email correspondence with the deputy director from 2019 about equipment storage protocols.
He had created the folder the day he filed the claim. He had suspected the system would make this mistake.
He placed the folder on the counter next to two other folders: DISABILITY - APPLICATION and FAMILY COURT - MODIFICATION. Both were new. Both were organized by date.
He made coffee and sat down to review the next steps. There were always next steps. That was what systems were for.