Introduction

Many unemployment claimants believe that if they lose their initial hearing, they can simply present their case anew on appeal and get a fresh determination. This misconception can be devastating. Two recent Ohio appellate decisions, Clark v. Director, Ohio Department of Job & Family Services, 2025-Ohio-2222 (8th Dist. 2025) and Tan v. Director of Ohio Department of Job and Family Services, 2025-Ohio-2614 (2d Dist. 2025), illustrate a harsh reality: the hearing before the Ohio Unemployment Compensation Review Commission is essentially your one shot at winning your case. Understanding why requires grasping the extremely limited role of reviewing courts in unemployment appeals.

The Standard of Review: A High Bar for Reversal

Under Ohio Revised Code 4141.282(H), a reviewing court may only reverse an unemployment decision if it finds the decision was unlawful, unreasonable, or against the manifest weight of the evidence. While this might sound like multiple paths to victory on appeal, the reality is far more restrictive.

This standard applies to all reviewing courts, from the common pleas court through the court of appeals to the Ohio Supreme Court. Each level applies the same deferential standard, meaning multiple appeals don't provide multiple chances for a different outcome. The reviewing courts are all asking the same narrow question: was there any competent, credible evidence to support the Commission's decision?

What Reviewing Courts Cannot Do

The most critical limitation is that reviewing courts cannot make factual findings or determine witness credibility. This prohibition fundamentally shapes the appeal process in ways many litigants don't anticipate. When a hearing officer decides that an employer's witness is more credible than the claimant, that credibility determination is essentially final. No reviewing court can say, "We think the claimant was more believable."

Similarly, reviewing courts cannot reweigh evidence. Even if reasonable minds might reach different conclusions from the same evidence, this provides no basis for reversal. As long as some competent, credible evidence supports the decision, the reviewing court must affirm, regardless of whether contradictory evidence might have supported a different outcome.

The Clark Case: When Documentation Defeats Testimony

Shalonda Clark's case powerfully illustrates these limitations. Clark was terminated from a law firm for repeated tardiness after receiving verbal and written warnings. At her hearing, she argued that the firm's flexible work policy allowed her to arrive late as long as she worked her required hours. She presented evidence that other employees also arrived late without consequences.

The hearing officer credited the employer's testimony that Clark's work hours were specifically 8:30 a.m. to 5:00 p.m., that the flexible work policy didn't apply to being late, and that other employees either had different schedules or called in when running late. The officer found the employer's garage swipe data showing Clark's late arrivals more persuasive than Clark's explanations.

On appeal, Clark challenged the reliability of the garage swipe evidence and argued the policy was ambiguously and unfairly enforced. However, both the common pleas court and court of appeals affirmed. Why? Because the record contained evidence supporting the Commission's decision. The garage swipes showed late arrivals. The supervisor testified about the policy and warnings. That evidence, even if disputed, was enough.

The reviewing courts couldn't second-guess whether Clark's interpretation of the flexible work policy was more reasonable. They couldn't decide that screenshots of other employees being offline proved inconsistent enforcement. They could only ask whether evidence supported the hearing officer's findings, and it did.

The Tan Case: When Credibility Determinations Control

Mary Tan's case demonstrates how credibility determinations at the hearing level become virtually unreviewable. Tan was fired for writing notes at work about making atomic bombs and harmful chemicals, shortly after expressing revenge fantasies about coworkers. At her hearing, she claimed she was merely trying to remember science lessons about radon for a friend buying a house.

The hearing officer found Tan's explanation lacked credibility, noting that she initially denied writing the notes, then admitted it at the hearing. The officer found it unreasonable that someone would write bomb-making instructions at work as a memory exercise about radon. This credibility determination effectively decided the case.

Tan appealed, arguing her notes didn't indicate actual threats, the employer's policy was vague, and the policy wasn't uniformly applied. But once the hearing officer determined Tan wasn't credible and the employer's witnesses were, the case was essentially over. The reviewing courts couldn't revisit whether Tan's radon explanation was believable. They couldn't independently assess whether writing chemical formulas during "idle time" truly threatened workplace safety.

Why the Hearing Level Is Everything

These cases reveal why the unemployment hearing is so critical. At the hearing level, the officer actively develops the record, questions witnesses, and makes credibility determinations. The officer can ask follow-up questions, request clarification, and probe inconsistencies. This is where facts are found and credibility is assessed.

Once the hearing ends and a decision issues, the factual record essentially closes. Appeals focus only on whether the existing record contains evidence supporting the decision. New evidence generally cannot be introduced. Credibility determinations cannot be revisited. The reviewing court doesn't conduct a new hearing or take testimony.

This means that failing to present evidence at the hearing, inadequately cross-examining witnesses, or making a poor impression on the hearing officer can be fatal to a case, with no meaningful opportunity for correction on appeal.

Practical Implications for Claimants

For unemployment claimants, this limited review standard has several critical implications. First, thorough preparation for the hearing is essential. This isn't a preliminary proceeding where you can save your best arguments for appeal. Every piece of evidence, every witness, every argument needs to be presented at the hearing level.

Documentation becomes crucial. In Clark's case, having written documentation of schedule flexibility or approved late arrivals might have changed the outcome. Verbal understandings or informal practices carry little weight against written policies and documented violations.

Credibility matters enormously. Tan's initial denial of writing the notes severely damaged her credibility, making her later explanations seem implausible. Consistency in statements, demeanor during testimony, and reasonable explanations for conduct all affect credibility determinations that become essentially unreviewable.

Cross-examination at the hearing provides the only opportunity to challenge opposing evidence. Clark attempted to show that other employees were also late, but the hearing officer accepted the employer's explanations. On appeal, she couldn't introduce new evidence about disparate treatment or further challenge the garage swipe data's reliability.

Practical Implications for Employers

Employers benefit from understanding these limitations as well. Presenting clear documentation, consistent witness testimony, and specific policy violations at the hearing level creates a record that's very difficult to overturn on appeal.

In both cases, the employers prevailed largely through documentation. The law firm had garage swipe data and written warnings. Fuyao had the actual notes Tan wrote and witness statements about her concerning comments. This documentary evidence provided the "competent, credible evidence" that reviewing courts cannot ignore.

Employers should also ensure their witnesses appear at hearings and are prepared to testify clearly about policies and their application. The testimony of supervisors who directly observed conduct or issued warnings carries significant weight in credibility determinations.

The Illusion of Multiple Appeals

Both Clark and Tan took their cases through multiple levels of appeal: from the hearing officer to the Review Commission, then to common pleas court, and finally to the court of appeals. At each level, they lost. This might seem like multiple chances to win, but in reality, each court was asking the same narrow question: does evidence in the record support the decision?

The multiple appeals created an illusion of thorough review, but each court was equally constrained by the same deferential standard. None could retry the facts, reassess credibility, or reweigh evidence. The outcome was essentially determined at the hearing level, with subsequent appeals merely confirming that some evidence supported that initial decision.

Strategic Considerations

Given these constraints, parties must approach unemployment hearings with the understanding that this is likely their only real opportunity to win. This means treating the hearing with the seriousness of a trial, not a preliminary proceeding.

Legal representation, while not required, can be valuable at the hearing level where it matters most. An experienced representative understands what evidence to present, how to cross-examine effectively, and how to make a clear record for any potential appeal.

Parties should also consider whether to appeal at all. If the hearing record contains evidence supporting the decision and credibility determinations went against you, an appeal may simply waste time and resources. The standard of review makes reversal unlikely unless there was truly no evidence supporting the decision or clear legal error occurred.

Lessons from Failed Appeals

Both Clark and Tan raised multiple arguments on appeal that seemed substantial: inconsistent policy enforcement, ambiguous rules, questionable evidence reliability, and disproportionate punishment. Yet both lost at every level. Their cases demonstrate that arguments that might seem persuasive in the abstract fail when reviewing courts cannot reexamine facts or credibility.

The lesson is clear: winning on appeal requires more than disagreeing with the hearing officer's conclusions. It requires showing either that no competent evidence supported those conclusions or that the officer made a clear legal error. Given how rarely these circumstances occur, the hearing level truly is where cases are won or lost.

Conclusion

The limited standard of review in Ohio unemployment cases means that the hearing before the Review Commission represents your real day in court. Clark and Tan learned this lesson the hard way, pursuing appeals through multiple levels only to find that courts could not reconsider the factual and credibility determinations made at their hearings.

For anyone involved in an unemployment dispute, the message is clear: prepare thoroughly for the hearing, present all evidence and arguments there, and understand that subsequent appeals offer very limited opportunities for reversal. The hearing officer's findings of fact and credibility determinations will likely stand through all levels of appeal as long as any competent evidence supports them.

This reality may seem harsh, but it reflects a policy decision to give finality to administrative fact-finding while preserving judicial review for questions of law. Understanding this limitation allows parties to focus their efforts where they matter most: at the hearing level where facts are found, credibility is assessed, and cases are truly decided.

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.