Fired employee seeks judicial review for unemployment benefits

David Yates Jun. 23, 2008, 8:00am

After the Texas Workforce Commission ruled Krystal Cosby was not eligible for benefits following her termination for misconduct, she promptly filed suit against TWC and Victoria's Secret Stores.

Seeking unemployment benefits, Cosby filed her suit June 18 in the Jefferson County District Court.

According to Cosby's petition, the local court has jurisdiction of appeals from final decisions of the TWC pursuant to Texas Labor Code Section 212.201.

"On June 4, 2008, the Texas Workforce Commission issued its Findings and Decisions of Commission Upon Review of Claim for Benefits brought before it from the Appeal Tribunal in Case No. 1013880-2," the suit says.

"The decision was that Claimant was not entitled to unemployment benefits because she was terminated for misconduct due to the violation of a company policy. The Texas Workforce Commission affirmed the Appeal Tribunal's decision dated April 18, 2008, that Plaintiff was not entitled to unemployment benefits."

Summarily, Cosby argues the tribunal's decision "is not supported by the evidence in this case" and that her employer, supposedly Victoria's Secret, "failed to provide substantial evidence" that Cosby violated in policies.

"The Appeal Tribunal erroneously discounted evidence that Plaintiff's supervisor violated the same policy, in the same manner and was given a verbal warning," the suit says.

"The Appeal Tribunal's decision refers to evidence and facts that are not a part of the record. Furthermore, the Appeal Tribunal erroneously ignored the clear, uncontroverted evidence that the employer had a progressive disciplinary policy that was not followed in Plaintiff's case."

The suit does not state what policy Cosby violated to cause her termination.

In addition to unemployment benefits, Cosby is suing for court costs and attorneys' fee.

She is represented by attorney Wyatt Snider of the Snider & Byrd law firm.

Judge Donald Floyd, 172nd Judicial District, has been assigned to the case.

Case No. E181-932

More News