Johnson v. Department of Employment & Training

BLOOM, Judge. This appeal involves a simple matter of statutory construction. We hold that appellant complied with the regulations of the Department of Employment and Training. We accordingly reverse the contrary judgment of the Circuit Court for Montgomery County.

Barbara H. Johnson, appellant, was employed by Dunhill Temporaries. On two occasions in the spring of 1984, Dunhill contacted Ms. Johnson to offer her a job assignment. On both occasions appellant declined the offer because she had job interviews which conflicted with the assignments. Ms. Johnson filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Department of Employment and Training (DET), appellee, in June of 1984.

DET issued two separate decisions dated August 29, 1984, each denying benefits on the basis that Ms. Johnson failed to accept “available, acceptable employment.” Each decision contained a notice of appeal, printed in boldface type in the middle of the first page, which read as follows: ⁷²⁴ —NOTICE OF RIGHT TO FURTHER APPEAI^ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY BE FILED IN ANY EMPLOYMENT SECURITY OFFICE, OR WITH THE APPEALS DIVISION, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW STREET, BALTIMORE, MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY MAIL. THE PERIOD FOR FILING A PETITION FOR REVIEW EXPIRES AT MIDNIGHT ON September 13, 1984. The date (September 13, 1984) was added by typewriter. Through her counsel at the Legal Aid Bureau, Ms. Johnson mailed a petition for review of each decision to the Board of Appeals of DET.

Ms. Johnson subsequently produced two affidavits by employees of the Legal Aid Bureau wherein the affiants swore that the petitions were typed, placed into a properly addressed envelope, sealed, stamped with proper postage by the bureau’s postage meter, and deposited in a local mailbox before the last scheduled pick up on Thursday, September 13, 1984. The envelope, which arrived at the Board of Appeals Monday, September 17, 1984, bore a United States Postal Service postmark of September 14, 1984. The Board of Appeals issued two decisions, one dated November 2, 1984, the other dated November 20, 1984, denying the petitions. Each one said, “The last day for filing an appeal in your case was September 13, 1984 and since your request was not made until September 14, 1984, the Board has no authority to grant the appeal which you request.” Ms. Johnson duly appealed to the Circuit Court for Montgomery County which, by order dated August 7, 1985, denied the petition for appeal and entered a final judgment.

The focus of this appeal is Md.Ann.Code art. 95A, § 7(e) and (f) (1985 repl. vol.) and the corresponding administrative regulations found in COMAR 24.02.06.02. The gist of art. ⁷²⁵ 95A, § 7(e) and (f) is that a claimant may file an appeal from an adverse determination “with the Board of Appeals within 15 days after the date of mailing of the notice to his last known address or if such notice is not mailed, within 15 days after the date of delivery of such notice.” COMAR 24.02.06.02.B essentially provides that petitions for review must be written, signed, and “delivered or mailed, postage prepaid, to the Department of Employment and Training.” Finally, COMAR 24.02.06.02D provides, in relevant part, as follows: “Appeals or petitions for reviews as specified in this regulation shall be filed ... within 15 calendar days after the date on which