Stevens Law Office v. Department of Labor (Kylie Cordner)

VERMONT SUPREME COURT Case No. 25-AP-272
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
Stevens Law Office* v. Department of
Labor (Kylie Cordner)
}
}
APPEALED FROM:
} Employment Security Board
} CASE NO. 11-24-081-01
In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:
In this appeal, employer challenges the Employment Security Board’s determination that
claimant was entitled to unemployment compensation. We affirm.
The record indicates the following. Claimant applied for unemployment compensation
after employer terminated her from her position as a paralegal. A claims adjudicator rejected
employer’s argument that claimant was discharged for misconduct related to her work and thus
should be disqualified from receiving benefits. A hearing officer upheld this decision. The
hearing officer found that before being hired by employer, claimant worked for two years at
another law firm. Her title at that job was “Litigation Paralegal.” Employer decided to hire
claimant for a trial period based on what appeared to be some gaps in her skill set as a paralegal.
The parties signed a contract covering the first thirty days of claimant’s employment. While
employer praised claimant in many areas, it found her legal skills wanting and discharged her at
the end of the thirty-day trial period.
The hearing officer explained that under 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(1)(A), an individual is
disqualified for benefits if the person “has been discharged by the individual’s last employing
unit for misconduct connected with the individual’s work.” “To be disqualified from
unemployment compensation benefits, an individual must act in substantial disregard of his
employer’s interests, either wilfully or with culpable negligence,” Favreau v. Dep’t of Emp. &
Training, 151 Vt. 170, 174-75 (1989), and the employer bears the burden of proof on this
question, Johnson v. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 138 Vt. 554, 555 (1980). Here, employer alleged that
claimant misrepresented her abilities by referring to herself as a “litigation paralegal” on her
resume. The hearing officer found that, while the title may have been overly optimistic, it was
the title bestowed upon her by her prior employer. The hearing officer found no disqualifying
conduct here, even if employer could have reasonably decided to discharge claimant.
The Board adopted the hearing officer’s findings and conclusions as its own. It reiterated
the applicable legal standard referenced above. It agreed with the hearing officer that employer
failed to meet its burden of establishing disqualifying misconduct. It found that claimant did not

2
misrepresent her experience and competency by identifying her prior job title as “litigation
paralegal.” That was in fact her job title and it was not false for her to include that title on her
resume. See In re Gray, 127 Vt. 303, 305 (1968) (holding that misrepresentations on claimant’s
job application that were not motivated by intent to misrepresent, conceal, or falsify did not
constitute disqualifying misconduct). The Board noted that employer had imposed a thirty-day
trial period for claimant, which suggested that employer was unsure of claimant’s skills and
wanted to assess them, and employer assigned claimant a job title of “Legal Assistant,” not
“paralegal.” Finally, the Board observed that Vermont did not impose any license requirements
or otherwise regulate the profession of paralegals and claimant did not hold herself out as a
member of a profession requiring certification that she did not possess. She did not demonstrate
any intent to conceal, falsify, or misrepresent her previous experience on her resume. Employer
decided to discharge claimant based on her performance, and its decision to do so may have been
reasonable and justified. This nonetheless did not meet the standard necessary to disqualify her
for benefits. Employer now appeals.
Our review of the Board’s decision is “highly deferential.” 863 To Go, Inc. v. Dep’t of
Labor, 2014 VT 61, ¶ 8, 196 Vt. 551. The Board’s factual findings will stand “unless clearly
erroneous,” and we will uphold the Board’s “conclusions if reasonably supported by the
findings.” Id. We presume that “[d]ecisions within the Board’s expertise are . . . correct unless
there is a clear showing to the contrary.” Id.
Employer provides its version of the evidence. It argues that the Board should have
found that claimant misrepresented her paralegal skills, apparently by indicating that she was a
“Litigation Paralegal” at her prior job. Employer argues that this inaccurate representation along
with its dissatisfaction with claimant’s performance constitutes misconduct.
The Board was unpersuaded by employer’s arguments as set forth above. It found that
claimant accurately stated her prior job title and that employer’s dissatisfaction with her
performance did not demonstrate misconduct. Essentially, employer asks this Court to reweigh
the evidence, which is not our role. “The weight to be given the testimony and the inferences to
be drawn therefrom are matters properly for the Board, not for this Court.” Frost v. Dep’t of
Emp. Sec., 135 Vt. 39, 40 (1977). The Board’s conclusion is supported by its findings, which
are in turn supported by the evidence. We thus affirm its decision.
Affirmed.
BY THE COURT:
Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice
Harold E. Eaton, Jr., Associate Justice
Nancy J. Waples, Associate Justice