Bartlett Unemployment Decision Upheld

A state referee has denied an Elicker administration request to reconsider her decision to grant unemployment benefits to fired city youth chief Jason Bartlett.

Principal Appeals Referee Kathleen Pashos of the state Employment Security Appeals Division issued that denial this past Thursday.

Earlier, on May 22, Pashos had overruled an earlier decision that supported the Elicker Administration’s opposition to allowing Bartlett to receive unemployment benefits. Pashos at the time gave two reasons then for ruling that Bartlett should receive unemployment benefits: The city provided ​“inconsistent” information to Bartlett about its investigation into his conduct in office, failing to prove that his actions constituted ​“willful misconduct” under the law. And the city failed to show up at a May 18 appeals hearing to make its case.

Click here for a previous story about that ruling and about Bartlett’s case in general.

In a request to reopen the case, Assistant Corporation Counsel Kevin Cassini said the city planned to attend that May 18 hearing. He said that it inadvertently missed the hearing because of changes wrought by Covid-19: most employees started working remotely, and ​“computer systems, and hardware, had to be arranged for each attorney.” In that process, ​“not all data was accurately transferred” from phones and laptops and desktop devices, ​“including calendaring of some events. … As a result this event was missed.” A reminder to call into the hearing ​“did not appear on my office devices, and … I was also distracted with a number of emergent COVID-related issues,” Cassini wrote. He took personal responsibility for the error and asked for another chance for the city to make its case.

No dice, Pashos ruled.

She wrote that precedent does exist to allow for ​“good faith error” on failing to attend a scheduled hearing, especially if the party ​“immediately” contacts the Board of Review about the mistake. But in this case the city side hadn’t registered for the appearance in advance; hadn’t shown evidence of having arranged in advance with its tax management firm to participate in the hearing; and for 10 days following the hearing failed to make contact with the Appeals Division about it.

If it chooses to continue pursuing this case, the Elicker administration has until July 2 to file an appeal of Pashos’s decision with a Board of Review.

“At this time,” said mayoral spokesman Gage Frank, ​“we are evaluating our options.”