Office of Administrative Hearings

DC Agency Top Menu

-A +A
Bookmark and Share

Department of Employment Services

The Department of Employment Services (DOES) makes determinations concerning unemployment compensation benefits.  DOES awards or denies benefits, determines the amount and duration of benefits, and can seek re-payment of benefits in certain situations.  Both claimants and employers may appeal these determinations to the Office of Administrative Hearings.  Appeals must be filed within 15 calendar days of the date that the determination is mailed to you (not the date you receive it).  You may submit your appeal request without a copy of the Claims Examiner’s Determination, but your appeal cannot be fully processed without it.

Sample Decisions

Sample Decisions

Administrative law judges issue a written decision for every case that is contested. The decisions below are examples of some issues raised in Office of Administrative Hearings’ cases involving this agency. You can review these decisions to get a sense of how prior cases were decided.

Please note that the facts of each case are different. These cases should be used for informational purposes only.

  • TKY v. A Nursing Center, June 14, 2012 (reversing denial of benefits for misconduct where Claimant was discharged in retaliation for refusing sexual advances from a supervisor; Claimant had good cause for filing request for appeal late (7 DCMR 312))
  • A.B. v. Local Co., Inc., June 12, 2012 ( reversing determination and finding Claimant qualified to receive benefits; Claimant voluntarily left her job to care for ill family members after Employer’s move to new location without reasonable access to public transportation(D.C. Official Code § 51-110(d); 7 DCMR 311))
  • Company, LLC v. A.B., June 25, 2012 (affirming determination that Claimant was qualified to receive benefits when Employer did not appear at hearing to meet its burden to establish a basis for disqualification)
  • A.B. v. Transportation Co., June 14, 2012 (reversing determination and finding Claimant qualified to receive benefits; although four preventable traffic accidents may constitute poor job performance, they did not constitute intentional misconduct (7 DCMR 312))
  • A.B. v. Local Food Store, June 14, 2012 (affirming determination that Claimant’s unprovoked assault upon another store employee was gross misconduct, disqualifying him from receiving benefits (7 DCMR 312.4))
  • A.B. v. Local Co., June 11, 2012 ( affirming determination that Claimant had resigned from his job due to “general dissatisfaction with work,” and “personal or domestic responsibilities,” not good cause connected with the work (7DCMR 311.6))
  • A.B. v. Local University, June 8, 2012 (modifying determination to simple misconduct when Claimant failed to report to work for excusable reasons but provided no explanation for failing to notify Employer of his absences (7 DCMR 312.5))
  • A.B. v. Local Food Store, Inc., May 30, 2012 ( modifying determination to simple misconduct when Claimant violated an Employer “zero tolerance” rule against workplace violence in a single incident during which Claimant had arguably been provoked (7 DCMR 312.5))
  • Sports Franchise v. A.B., December 23, 2010 (affirming determination that Claimant, employed at a sports venue during certain seasons of the year, is qualified to receive benefits when the season ends and she, albeit temporarily, is no longer working)
  • P.Q. v. Employee Placement Servs., May 15, 2012 (affirming determination that Claimant left her job voluntarily; her leaving, without prior notification to Employer about her medical condition, did not arise from good cause connected with the work or any other non-disqualifying reason (7 DCMR 311))
  • L.M. v. Dep’t of Emp’t Servs., March 23, 2011 (affirming determination that Claimant had been overpaid benefits for three weeks during which he had been paid wages he did not report to the agency (D.C. Official Code § 51-119(d)(1))

Agency LawAgency Law

Administrative law judges base their decisions upon many sources of law, chief among them the District of Columbia laws (DC Official Code) and the District of Columbia regulations (DCMR). Depending on the type of case, federal law (US Code) and federal regulations (CFR) may also be relevant. Cases decided on the issues in other courts, especially the District of Columbia Court of Appeals, are relevant.