STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA
PASQUOTANK COUNTY
TAKISHA LOCKE,
Petitioner,
Vs.
Defendants.
NOW COMES Petitioner Takisha Locke complaining of Respondent and alleges as
follows:
THE PARTIES
1. Petitioner-Claimant Takisha Locke is a resident of Pasquotank County, North Carolina.
2. Respondent North Carolina Department of Commerce, Division of Employment Security
(hereinafter “Division”) is responsible for the administration of the unemployment
insurance program in the State of North Carolina.
3. This matter arises out of Petitioner-Claimant’s claim for unemployment benefits.
PROCERUAL HISTORY
4. Petitioner-Claimant filed an initial claim for unemployment benefits, with a claim
effective date of March 22, 2020.
IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
FILE NO.
PETITION
FOR
JUDICIAL REVIEW
N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 96-15(h) and (i)
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT OF
COMMERCE, DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT
SECURITY
Respondent
Defendant.
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
2
5. Consequently, the Division issued a determination, with Issue ID: 10732193, finding that
Petitioner had failed to accurately report my work and earnings from The Benjamin
House, Inc. for a period of March 22, 2020 through March 13, 2021. The Division further
held that Petitioner was ineligible for benefits from September 12, 2021 through
September 10, 2022; she had been overpaid unemployment insurance benefits in the
amount of $14,265.00 plus a penalty of $2,139.75, and overpaid for pandemic
supplemental benefits in the amount of $15,600.00 plus a penalty of $2,340.00.
6. Petitioner then filed an appeal Determination, at the Appeals Section.
7. On or about June 14, 2022, an Appeals Referee issued a decision (Appeals Docket No.
22-LA-024705, which held that Petitioner knowingly made false statements and failed to
disclose material facts in order to obtain the amount of benefits she received. The
Appeals Referee upheld the decision of the Division that Petitioner had been overpaid
benefits in the amount of $14,265.00 plus a penalty of $2,139.75, and overpaid pandemic
supplemental benefits in the amount of $15,600.00 plus a penalty of $2,340.00.
8. On or about June 24, 2022, Petitioner filed an appeal of the Appeals Referee’s Decision
with the Division.
9. On July 7, 2022, the Division, by and through its Board of Review (hereinafter “Board”),
issued Higher Authority Decision No. 22-HA-003376, which affirmed the Appeals
Referee’s Decision.
10. With the issuance of Decision of Higher Authority No. 22-HA-003376, Petitioner has
exhausted the remedies provided in Chapter 96 of the North Carolina General Statutes.
11. This Petition for Judicial Review is filed pursuant to N.G. Gen. Stat. §§ 96-15(h) and (i).
3
12. This Petition has filed within 30 days of the earlier of the date or notification of the
mailing of Higher Authority Decision No. 22-HA-003376.
EXCEPTIONS TO HIGHER AUTHORITY DECISION NO. 22-HA-003376, APPEALS
DECISION NO. 22-LA-024705 AND THE PROCEDURE OF THE HEARING
13. The Divisions of findings of facts are not supported by the competent evidence in the
record.
14. The Division’s conclusions of law are not in accordance with the applicable law.
15. Finding of Fact No. 4 is not supported by the competent evidence in the record.
16. Finding of Fact No. 5 is not supported by the competent evidence in the record.
17. Finding of Fact No. 6 is not supported by the competent evidence in the record.
18. Finding of Fact No. 7 is not supported by the competent evidence in the record.
19. Petitioner-Claimant takes exception to both Higher Authority Decision No. 22-LA-
003376 and Appeals Decision No. 22-LA-024705, to the extent that the finding fails to
make appropriate findings of fact. There is no competent evidence in the record to
support the challenged findings of fact. When a judge sits as both judge and juror, as he
or she does in a non-jury proceeding, it is that judge’s duty to weigh and consider all
competent evidence, and pass upon the credibility of the witnesses, the weight to be given
their testimony and the reasonable inferences to be drawn therefrom. In re Patron, 250
N.C. App. 375, 384, 792 S.E.2d 853, 860-61 (2016).
20. Petitioner further objects to the manner in which the hearing to the extent that it was not
conducted in a manner so as to preserve the substantial rights of the parties.
4
21. Petitioner further takes exception to the Board of Review’s Conclusions of Law are not in
accordance with the law.
22. Petitioner further takes exception to the Boards failure to address the undisputed
competent evidence in the record that Petitioner did not intentionally make any
representations to the Division. On review, the Superior Court applies the whole record
test, examining all competent evidence to determine whether the Board’s and the
Division’s findings and conclusions are supported by substantial evidence. Henderson v.
N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 91 N.C. App. 527, 372 S.E.2d 887 (1988). Substantial
evidence is “relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as evidence adequate to
support a conclusion. Lackey v. N.C. Dept. of Human Resources, 306 N.C. 231, 238, 293
S.E. 2d 171, 176 (1982).
23. Petitioner further takes exception to the Divisions finding that as a matter of law,
Petitioner conduct amounted to fraud within the meaning of the law.
PETITIONER’S PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Petitioner-Claimant prays the following relief:
55. That Appeal Decision No. 22-LA-024705 be reversed.
56. That Higher Authority Decision 22-HA-003376 be reversed.
57. That the Fraud determination be reversed.
58. An Order that Claimant does not owe the fifteen (15%) penalty;
59. That the Determination of Overpayment be reversed, vacated and/or appropriately
modified.
60. That at least, on the alternative, all the amounts owing in terms of overpayment and fines
be reduced by 60%.
61. That the costs of this action be taxed against Respondent; and
5
62. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just, including, but not limited to a new
hearing, before a unbiased Appeals Referee.
This the ___ day of August, 2022.
Takisha Locke, Petitioner
1413 London Street
Elizabeth City, NC 27909-5614
At Legal writing experts, we would be happy to assist in preparing any legal document you need. We are international lawyers and attorneys with significant experience in legal drafting, Commercial-Corporate practice and consulting. In the last few years, we have successfully undertaken similar assignments for clients from different jurisdictions. If given this opportunity, The LegalPen will be able to prepare the legal document within the shortest time possible. You can send us your quick enquiry ( here )