Lisa Tilley v. Department of Labor

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 25-AP-161
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

ENTRY ORDER

JANUARY TERM, 2026

Lisa Tilley* v. Department of Labor } APPEALED FROM:
} Employment Security Board
} CASE NO. 11-24-019-01

In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

Claimant Lisa Tilley, self-represented, appeals from an Employment Security Board
order dismissing her appeal from the decision of an administrative law judge (ALJ) as untimely
filed. We affirm.

In October 2024, the Department of Labor’s Program Integrity Unit issued notice to
claimant that her debt of $7193 for overpaid unemployment benefits would be submitted to the
Department of Taxes for collection through an offset of her tax refund. See 32 V.S.A. § 5933
(providing that claimant agencies may submit any debt of $45 or more to Department of Taxes
for collection through setoff of any refund otherwise owed to debtor). Claimant timely appealed
this notice to an ALJ. See id. § 5934(c) (stating that debtor may appeal notice of intended setoff
by requesting hearing before claimant agency within thirty days).

In a written decision dated January 16, 2025, an ALJ affirmed the offset determination.
He found that the underlying overpayment determination became final over three years earlier
and claimant had yet to repay any portion of this amount to the Department. At the conclusion
of the ALJ’s order was a notice setting forth claimant’s appeal rights. It explained that the ALJ’s
decision would become final unless claimant requested an appeal, in writing, within thirty
calendar days of the decision date.

Claimant filed her appeal to the Board on February 24, 2025. The Board issued a notice
explaining that claimant’s appeal appeared to be untimely and, while a hearing would be
scheduled before the Board, the only issue to be addressed would be timeliness. Claimant did
not register to participate in the April 2025 hearing as directed in the Board’s hearing notice and,
as a result, no hearing was held. The Board subsequently issued a decision concluding that it
was without jurisdiction to consider claimant’s appeal because it was filed on February 24, more
than thirty days after the January 16 date of the ALJ decision. This appeal followed.

On appeal to this Court, claimant argues that the tax offset was unfairly assessed. She
asserts that she applied for the overpaid benefits at issue when her employment was impacted by
the COVID-19 shutdown and, while she was unable to secure appropriate assistance from
Department employees at the time due to understaffing, she provided the agency with all
required information and was initially deemed eligible. Claimant does not, however, address the
Board’s conclusion that it was without jurisdiction to consider her appeal because she did not file
it within thirty days of the ALJ’s order affirming the offset determination.

Claimant’s untimely appeal forecloses our ability to reach her arguments on the merits of
the offset determination. The unemployment-compensation statute requires that any appeal to
the Board be filed “[w]ithin 30 days after the date of the [ALJ’s] decision.” 21 V.S.A. § 1349(a).
We have recognized that a timely appeal is a jurisdictional requirement, and the Board does not
have discretion to extend the statutory appeal period except for failure to receive notice as
specified in 21 V.S.A. § 1347. Allen v. Vt. Emp. Sec. Bd., 133 Vt. 166, 168-69 (1975); see
Trask v. Dep’t of Emp. & Training, 170 Vt. 589, 590 (2000) (mem.) (declining “to carve out a
fairness-based public policy exception to Allen”).

The record demonstrates that claimant’s appeal was not filed within thirty days of the
ALJ’s decision as required under 21 V.S.A. § 1349(a). She does not contend that she failed to
receive notice of the ALJ’s decision, so there was no statutory basis to extend the appeal period.
The Board thus correctly concluded that it lacked jurisdiction to hear claimant’s untimely appeal.

Affirmed.

BY THE COURT:

Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice

Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice

2