May 27, 1999
MARY A. WALKER, PETITIONER,
DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SERVICES, RESPONDENT.
Before Terry, Steadman and Ruiz, Associate Judges.
The opinion of the court was delivered by: Per Curiam
On Petition for Review of Decision of the District of Columbia Department of Employment Services
Submitted April 29, 199
Appellant Mary Walker challenges the DOES Office of Appeals and Review's upholding of an appeal examiner's decision to deny unemployment benefits based on misconduct. D.C. Code § 46-111(b)(2) (1996). We affirm the agency's decision.
We defer to agency findings of fact so long as they are supported by substantial evidence. Cooper v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 588 A.2d 1172, 1174 (D.C. 1991). Evidence in the record supports a finding that Walker presented false and misleading information about the circumstances of prior job termination on her application for employment with the Library of Congress. *fn1
We also see no basis to disturb the agency's legal Conclusion that a false employment application warrants a finding of "other than gross" misconduct, disqualifying the applicant from unemployment benefits to the extent provided in D.C. Code § 46-111(b)(2) and its accompanying regulations. Smith v. District of Columbia Dep't of Employment Servs., 548 A.2d 95, 97 (D.C. 1988). Other agencies and courts, in defining misconduct under similar statutes, have concluded that misrepresentation on an employment application falls within that category. See Scott v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 474 A.2d 426 (Pa. 1984); Leonard v. Commonwealth Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 431 A.2d 1108 (Pa. 1981); Mirra v. Catherwood, 295 N.Y.S.2d 775 (N.Y. App. Div. 1968); Woodhams v. Ore-Ida Foods, Inc., 613 P.2d 380 (Idaho 1980).