James v. District of Columbia Department of Employment Services

The majority concludes that based on hearsay statements in the form of disciplinary reports, there is substantial evidence to support the agency’s finding that petitioner was discharged for misconduct under D.C.Code § 46-lll(b) (Repl.1990). The difficulty with this conclusion is twofold: (1) the petitioner’s sworn testimony challenged the accuracy of the hearsay disciplinary action reports on which the employer relied, and (2) the employer’s witness did not have personal knowledge of the events at issue.

Unlike the key decision on which the majority relies, Bourjaily v. United States, 483 U.S.…