Skip to main content

Pajor v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Conn. App. Ct.June 27, 2017No. AC38604Cited 1 time
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Alvord, Sheldon, Norcott
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The appellate court affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the plaintiff's appeal from the unemployment compensation board's decision, upholding the board's determination that the plaintiff failed to show good cause for missing a hearing and did not demonstrate that the board's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, or an abuse of discretion.

What This Ruling Means

# Pajor v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act ## What Happened Pajor filed an appeal with Connecticut's unemployment compensation board but missed a scheduled hearing. He later tried to appeal that decision, claiming the board treated him unfairly. ## What the Court Decided The appellate court sided with the unemployment board. The judges found that Pajor failed to provide a valid reason for missing his hearing. The court also determined the board's actions were fair and reasonable—not arbitrary or improper. The court upheld the board's original decision. ## Why This Matters for Workers This case highlights the importance of showing up for unemployment hearings and providing good documentation. If you miss a hearing without a strong excuse, an appeals court is unlikely to overturn the board's decision, even if you believe it was wrong. Workers should treat unemployment proceedings seriously and attend all scheduled hearings or contact the board ahead of time if you have a legitimate conflict. Missing a hearing without justification can close the door to challenging unfavorable decisions later.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Similar Rulings

Palmer v. United States Postal Service
D. Colo.Sep 2025
Defendant Win
Crockett
E.D. Cal.Feb 2024
Defendant Win
Burton
E.D. Cal.Nov 2023
Remanded
George Chavis v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., and Division of Employment Security
Mo. Ct. App.Jun 2022
Plaintiff Win
Gentile-Riaz
Conn. App. Ct.Dec 2025

The plaintiff appealed from the trial court's judgment granting the defen- dants' motions to dismiss her retaliatory discharge action, which alleged a violation of the whistleblower statute (§ 31-51m). The plaintiff, while employed at a pizza restaurant owned by the defendant S Co. and managed by the defendant L, submitted a complaint to the local health district reporting unsanitary conditions at the restaurant. The day after a health inspector visited the restaurant and disclosed that the plaintiff had made the complaint, the defendants terminated her employment. The plaintiff claimed that the trial court erred in determining that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction on the ground that she had failed to exhaust administrative remedies available through the Department of Labor, as required by § 31-51m (c). Held: The trial court improperly granted the defendants' motions to dismiss the plaintiff's retaliatory discharge action on the ground that it lacked subject matter jurisdiction, as the plaintiff's action focused on her employer's con- duct in terminating her employment following her complaint to the health district, the substance of which related to public health, not occupational safety or health. Argued September 9—officially released December 16, 2025

Remanded

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.