Introduction

When an employer terminates an employee for violating company policy, Ohio unemployment law requires more than just proving the violation occurred. The employer must also demonstrate that the policy was both fair and fairly applied. A recent Ohio appellate court decision illustrates how this requirement plays out in practice and what evidence is needed to challenge the fair application of workplace rules.

The Dual Requirement: Fair Policies, Fairly Applied

Under Ohio unemployment compensation law, an employer can establish just cause for discharge by proving that an employee violated a specific company rule or policy. However, this alone is insufficient. The law imposes a dual requirement: the policy itself must be fair, and the employer must apply it fairly and consistently across all employees.

This requirement recognizes that workplace policies can become tools of discrimination or arbitrary enforcement if not applied uniformly. An employer cannot selectively enforce rules against certain employees while ignoring violations by others. Such inconsistent application undermines the legitimacy of the discharge and may result in the terminated employee receiving unemployment benefits despite violating company policy.

The Tan Case: A Lesson in Evidentiary Requirements

The recent case of Tan v. Director of Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 2025-Ohio-2614 (2d Dist. 2025), involved Mary Tan, who was discharged from Fuyao American Glass for violating the company's workplace violence policy. Tan had written notes at work discussing how to make atomic bombs and harmful chemicals, shortly after expressing desires for revenge against coworkers. The Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission denied her unemployment benefits, finding just cause for the discharge.

On appeal, Tan argued that Fuyao had not uniformly applied its workplace violence policy, suggesting that other employees who violated the policy were treated differently. This argument strikes at the heart of the fair application requirement. If proven, inconsistent enforcement could have potentially changed the outcome of her case.

However, the appellate court noted a critical deficiency in Tan's argument: she provided no evidence to support her claim of inconsistent application. Despite her assertion that the policy was not uniformly enforced, the record was completely silent on this point. The court had no examples of other employees engaging in similar conduct who were treated more leniently, no documentation of disparate treatment, and no testimony supporting her position.

The Burden of Proof: What Claimants Must Show

This case highlights an important procedural point that often trips up unemployment claimants. While the law requires fair application of employer policies, the burden falls on the claimant to provide evidence of unfair or inconsistent application. Mere allegations or arguments in briefs are insufficient without supporting evidence in the record.

To successfully challenge the fair application of an employer policy, a claimant typically needs to present concrete examples of disparate treatment. This might include evidence that other employees engaged in similar conduct but received lesser discipline or no discipline at all. Documentation, witness testimony, or other forms of proof showing a pattern of inconsistent enforcement can be crucial.

The type of evidence needed might vary depending on the situation. For attendance policies, a claimant might show that other employees with similar attendance issues were not terminated. For safety violations, evidence that comparable safety infractions by others resulted in warnings rather than termination could be relevant. The key is providing specific, documented instances rather than general claims of unfairness.

Why Fair Application Matters

The fair application requirement serves several important purposes in unemployment law. First, it ensures that employer policies are genuine business rules rather than pretexts for discriminatory or arbitrary terminations. Second, it protects employees from being singled out for enforcement while others violate the same rules with impunity.

This requirement also encourages employers to maintain consistent disciplinary practices and clear documentation of policy enforcement. When employers know they may need to demonstrate uniform application of their rules, they are more likely to treat all employees equitably and maintain proper records of disciplinary actions.

Practical Implications for Employees

Employees who believe they were unfairly singled out for policy enforcement should begin documenting evidence immediately. This includes gathering information about how the employer has treated other employees in similar situations. Coworkers who can testify about inconsistent enforcement may provide valuable evidence. Written documentation of other policy violations and the employer's response (or lack thereof) becomes crucial.

The timing of evidence gathering is critical. Once the unemployment hearing process begins, obtaining this information becomes much more difficult. Employees may no longer have access to workplace records or contact with coworkers who could provide testimony. Starting documentation while still employed or immediately after termination improves the chances of building a strong case.

Practical Implications for Employers

Employers must recognize that having a written policy is only the first step. Consistent enforcement and documentation of that enforcement are equally important. This means training supervisors on uniform application of rules, maintaining records of all disciplinary actions, and ensuring that similar violations result in similar consequences regardless of who commits them.

When defending against unemployment claims, employers should be prepared to demonstrate not just that a violation occurred, but that the discipline imposed was consistent with how similar violations have been handled in the past. This might require presenting evidence of other terminations for comparable conduct or explaining any apparent disparities in treatment.

The Interplay with Other Just Cause Factors

Fair application is just one element in determining whether just cause exists for discharge. Courts also consider whether the employee knew or should have known about the rule, whether the rule relates to legitimate business interests, and whether the violation was serious enough to warrant termination. However, even if all other factors support a finding of just cause, unfair or discriminatory application of the rule can still result in the employee receiving benefits.

The severity of the violation may affect how strictly courts examine the fair application requirement. For serious safety violations or threats of violence, as in the Tan case, courts may be more willing to find just cause even without extensive evidence of how similar cases were handled. For less serious infractions, evidence of consistent enforcement becomes more critical.

Common Pitfalls in Fair Application Challenges

Several common mistakes can undermine claims of unfair application. First, comparing dissimilar situations weakens the argument. The conduct being compared must be genuinely comparable for the argument to have merit. Second, relying on rumors or speculation rather than concrete evidence fails to meet the evidentiary burden. Third, waiting too long to raise the issue may result in lost evidence or faded memories that could have supported the claim.

Another pitfall involves focusing on general unfairness rather than specific inconsistent application of the particular rule at issue. While an employer may have a generally unfair workplace culture, unemployment law focuses specifically on whether the rule that led to termination was fairly applied.

Conclusion

The requirement that employer policies be fairly applied represents a crucial protection for Ohio workers facing termination. However, as the Tan case demonstrates, asserting unfair application requires more than mere argument. Claimants must present concrete evidence of disparate treatment to succeed on this ground.

For employees, this means being proactive in documenting potential inconsistencies in policy enforcement. For employers, it requires maintaining consistent disciplinary practices and comprehensive records. Both parties benefit from understanding that fair application is not just a legal requirement but a practical necessity in the unemployment compensation system.

The fair application doctrine embodies a fundamental principle of workplace justice: rules should apply equally to all. While the burden of proving unfair application may be challenging, as demonstrated in Tan v. Director of Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, this requirement ensures that employer policies serve legitimate business purposes rather than becoming tools for arbitrary or discriminatory treatment. Understanding these requirements helps both employees and employers navigate the unemployment system more effectively and promotes fairness in Ohio workplaces.

Disclaimer: This post is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. For specific situations, consult with a qualified attorney or contact the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.