Job Application Inconsistencies Excused by NY Claimant’s Lack of Computer Skills
A New York appellate court affirmed a decision by the state’s Workers’ Compensation Board that found a claimant had not violated N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 114-a, where various potential employers had no record of her claimed electronic submission of job applications and where it appeared that she had attached someone else’s resume to several applications that had successfully posted to potential employers [Matter of Takacs v. Kraft Foods Group Inc., 2021 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 2315 (3d Dept., Apr. 8, 2021]. The Court pointed to the claimant’s lack of computer skills as evidence upon which the Board could reasonably have made its findings.
Background
Claimant stopped working in 2015, due to back issues that were determined to be work-related. Beginning in 2018, she sought employment and attempted to record her efforts to find work within her medical restrictions. She was unable to verify that she electronically submitted a number of applications and in other cases, someone else’s resume was attached to her electronic application.
The employer and its carrier contended that claimant had made knowing misrepresentations regarding her attachment to the labor market and that she should be disqualified from receiving further benefits pursuant to N.Y. Workers’ Comp. Law § 114-a. The WCLJ declined to do so and the Board affirmed.
The appellate court noted that claimant had provided proof pointing to her “lack of computer savvy as the culprit” [Opinion, p. 2]. The resume that had been erroneously submitted was a template saved in the same location as her own, actual resume. Moreover, it appeared that she had “submitted” some applications without properly logging in via a public computer. The court stressed that the Board was free to credit this proof that claimant made mistakes in conducting her job search without knowingly misrepresenting any material fact about it. Despite the existence of proof in the record that could support a different result, the proof relied upon by the Board constituted substantial evidence for the determination that she did not violate § 114-a. The Board’s decision was affirmed.