Cooper v. Starbucks Coffee Corp.
District of Columbia Court of Appeals
1Opinion of the Court
Nebeker, Senior Judge:
Starbucks Coffee Corporation (“Starbucks”), respondent, terminated Omar Cooper, petitioner, due to his admitted use of profane language and alleged pushing of a co-worker, Deniene Sanders. Mr. Cooper, represented by student attorneys, challenges whether the Office of Administrative Hearings (“OAH”) erred in ruling that he is ineligible for eight weeks of unemployment compensation when the Administrative Law Judge (“ALJ”) only relied upon hearsay evidence. Starbucks did not file a brief. We reverse and instruct OAH to award Mr. Cooper the requested unemployment benefits.
FA…
2Cases cited13 opinions
- United States v. HaleSupreme Court of the United States · 1975
- Kopff v. District of Columbia Alcoholic Beverage Control BoardDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1977
- Jadallah v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1984
- Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement Inc.District of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2006
- Washington Times v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1999
8 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by1 opinion
- Yazam, Inc. d/b/a Empower v. D.C. Department of For-Hire VehiclesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2025