Gardner v. D.C. Depart. of Employment Ser

15 Citing cases

  1. Prime v. D.C. Dept. of Public Works

    955 A.2d 178 (D.C. 2008)   Cited 2 times

    Petitioner's mistaken belief that he could make it to the hearing did not justify his failure either to appear or to make a timely request for a postponement. See Gardner v. District of Columbia, 736 A.2d 1012, 1018 (D.C. 1999) (holding agency did not err in denying request for reconsideration where petitioner "gave no reason for his absence other than his own mistake" as to the hearing date). In response to the ALJ's point that he had not moved for a continuance as required, petitioner asserts that he did not do so when he learned of the eviction because there was insufficient time to prepare a motion.

  2. Young v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs.

    268 A.3d 827 (D.C. 2022)

    Factual findings are supported by "substantial evidence" when there is such "relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 181 (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp. Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) ). We uphold OAH's legal conclusions unless they are "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

  3. Yul Hill v. Dist. of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs.

    272 A.3d 274 (D.C. 2020)

    It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’ " Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement, Inc. , 905 A.2d 177, 181 (D.C. 2006) (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) ). "Although our review in a workers' compensation case is of the decision of the CRB, not that of the ALJ, ‘we cannot ignore the compensation order which is the subject of the CRB's review.’ " Reyes v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 48 A.3d 159, 164 (D.C. 2012) (quoting Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 916 A.2d 149, 151 (D.C. 2007) ).

  4. Yates v. U.S. Dep't of the Treasury

    149 A.3d 248 (D.C. 2016)   Cited 2 times

    Substantial evidence is “more than a mere scintilla” and “means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs. , 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). We sustain OAH's legal conclusions unless they are “[a]rbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.”

  5. Caison v. Project Support Servs., Inc.

    99 A.3d 243 (D.C. 2014)   Cited 4 times

    “Substantial evidence is more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C.1999) (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). “The goal of the [District of Columbia's] unemployment compensation act is to protect employees against economic dependency caused by temporary unemployment and to reduce the necessity of relief or other [government subsidized] welfare programs.”

  6. Badawi v. Hawk One Sec. Inc.

    21 A.3d 607 (D.C. 2011)   Cited 13 times
    Holding that security guard's removal of firearm while on duty and placing it unsecured desk was not gross misconduct, because, among other things, incident was "isolated" and did not result in serious consequences to employer

    Substantial evidence is relevant evidence that "a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Giles, supra, 758 A.2d at 524 (quoting Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999)) (internal quotation mark omitted). However, we review the ALJ's legal conclusions of whether a terminated employee's actions constitute gross or simple misconduct de novo. Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC, 985 A.2d 421, 424 (D.C. 2009).

  7. Castro v. Security Assur. Management, Inc.

    20 A.3d 749 (D.C. 2011)   Cited 2 times

    Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla. It means such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (citations omitted). OAH's legal conclusions must be sustained unless they are [a] "arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law."

  8. D.C. Does v. Lipkins

    980 A.2d 1066 (D.C. 2009)

    Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999). We will not "affirm an administrative determination which reflects a misconception of the relevant law or a faulty application of the law."

  9. Douglas-Slade v. U.S. Dept. of Transp

    959 A.2d 698 (D.C. 2008)   Cited 4 times

    Substantial evidence means "such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999) (internal citations omitted). An employee who voluntarily leaves his or her job is generally disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits unless the employee resigned due to "good cause connected with the work.

  10. Amegashie v. CCA of Tennessee

    957 A.2d 584 (D.C. 2008)   Cited 3 times
    Holding that correctional officer's contacting of inmate housed in correctional facility other than the one the officer staffed did not constitute gross misconduct because employer had not shown the officer “deliberately or willfully violated an unambiguous and consistently-enforced employer rule”

    Substantial evidence is "more than a mere scintilla," but rather is "such relevant evidence that a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Id. at 181; see also Gardner v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 736 A.2d 1012, 1015 (D.C. 1999). III.