RyansRyan PRIVILEGED ATTORNEY CLIENT COMMUNI AND ATTORNEY WORK PRODUCT June 1, 2020 Michael J Luzzi Law Offices of Michael J. Luzzi, LLC 1172 Townsend Ave. New Haven, CT 06512 Dear Attorney Luzzi: ‘You have asked this office to investigate concerns relating to Town of East Haven ("Town") employees improperly collecting unemployment benefits while also being paid wages by the Town. AAs part of my investigation, Interviewed four (4) current Town employees. 1 also reviewed several documents, including emails, text message and Department of Labor documents and statutes. 1 SUMMARY OF INVESTIGATION ‘After being retained for this task by you, the undersigned interviewed four (4) individuals; Loribeth Rodriguez, Zackary Barker, Jamie Maturo and Michelle Benivegna. In ‘addition to interviewing these individuals, who are all Town employees, the following documents were reviewed: ‘+ Booklet published by CT Department of Labor entitled “Unemployment Insurance: A Guide to Collecting Benefits in the State of Connecticut";ma orm Mil a eee pa) Page tas * Unemployment claim information for Zackery Barker, Lorbeth Rodriguez. and Jamie Maturo; ‘+ Emails from Attorney Luzzi to Town supervisors on March 17, March 18, April 13, and April 27, 2020; ‘+ Text ftom Zackery Barker to AFSCME Council 4, Town Hall Union bargaining unit employees on April 9, 2020; ‘+ Department of Labor forms and website information; ‘+ Section 31-275 of the Connecticut General Statues and decisions by the Department ‘of Labor, Employment Security Appeals Division, Board of Reviews ‘This letter summarizes the investigation by: (1) describing the process of the ‘investigation; (2) outlining the issues investigated; (3) setting forth a summary of findings; (4) detailing statements made in interviews and excepts ftom relevant documents; and (4) setting forth conclusions based upon the facts found. I. _ ISSUES INVESTIGATED ‘The following issues were investigated + Did Loribeth Rodriguez knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Tovin?; ‘+ Did Zackery Barker knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits While receiving wages from the Town?; and + Did Jamie Maturo knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town?IN é . “Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyaneRyan Sane 12020 Rcunes Page of 8 I. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS ‘A. Its found that Loribeth Rodriguez did knowingly and improperly collet State ‘unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town, She is also found to have provided dishonest responses and information in an investigation, B. It is found that Zackery Barker did knowingly and improperly collect State ‘unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town. He is also found to have provided dishonest responses and information in an investigation, C. I is found that Jamie Maturo did knowingly and improperly colleet State ‘unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town. She is also found to have provided dishonest responses and information in an investigation, IV. INTERVIEWS At the beginning ofeach interview, the individual being interviewed was informed by the investigator ofthe “ground rules” forthe interview. The interview subject was told that he or she was expected to tell the truth and to be as complete as possible in his or her responses. The individual was also told that, if he or she wanted to go back to a previous question, he or she could interrupt the interview at any time to do so. Further, the individual was told that he or she ‘would be asked a “catchall question” at the end if they wanted to add anything that was not asked. Finally, each individual was told that, at any time after the interview, he or she could contact Tracy Yentsch in the investigator's office to provide additional information or change or correct any statement that he or she made during the interview. A. Interview of Loribeth Rodriguez‘Attorney Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 12020, eee Page 4of 28 ‘Ms. Rodriguez works as Administrative Assistant for the Engineering Department. She ‘has worked forthe Town for approximately three (3) years, Ms. Rodriguez applied for unemployment benefits on April 9, 2020. The application asked the date she stopped working. Ms, Rodriguez. stated that she indicated on the unemployment application that March 17 was her last day of work because that isthe day she stopped going to work (atthe Town). Ms. Rodriquez acknowledged that she received a total of four (4) payments from the Department of Labor. The payments were made on April 17, April 18", May 4 and May 5, ‘Ms. Rodriguez stated that this was the frst time she applied for unemployment benefits She offered no evidence to verify this assertion. She thought she just filled out the application for benefits and that it would take afew months (tobe processed), ‘Ms. Rodriguez stated that she received the frst email sent by Attorney Luzzi dated March 17, which said that they could become unemployed and can file and that he would let them know. Her Union received a second email (less than 24 hours later) dated March 18 (he next day) that employees were now to be paid through April 17. (On or about April 9, Ms, Rodriguez received what was intended to be a group Town Hall Union text from Zackery Barker, who is Union president, in which he advised Union members to file for unemployment benefits. She stated that she created an account online but never fled a claim. ‘She said that she thought she was just “getting the ball rolling” so she would have an account ready if she had to file a claim. She said she just filled out the intial paperwork but did not file any claims (aftr that), "although Ms Roeiguez sated at her inteview that he received he second of four (1) pymensom Api 1,2 5 Deparment of Labor payment history shows thatthe second of four psymens was made to Ms. Roatauee on ‘pri.Attorney Michael J, Luzzi RyansRyan une 1, 2020 Tenner Page 5 of 28 Ms. Rodriguez told Mr. Barker that she was collecting unemployment benefits while being paid. She alleged that she did not contact anyone from the Town's management because the Town (Hall) was closed. She said she could not get in touch with anyone there and was not allowed to goin the building. These assertions are inaccurate and dishonest. Ms. Rodriguez physically returned to work on May 4, She stated that she did not contact, ‘anyone atthe Town to let them know she was collecting unemployment benefits, She said that she did not think she had to do that because she canceled (her claim) online? Ms. Rodriguez stated that she knew that another person from Public Works in her union (Jamie Maturo) also received unemployment benefits. She said that she told (Ms, Msturo) ‘if You got paid you need to pay it back’. She told her that they need to cancel, and they did that Notably, Ms. Maturo began the process of cancelling her claim on May 9, 2020. Ms. Rodriguez said that she canceled her claim and received confirmation ofthe cancellation on May 4. She said she canceled twice to be on the safe side, She provided no evidence that she canceled her claim on May 4 only evidence that she began the process after she was placed on Administrative Leave on May 8, 2020 Ms. Rodriguez confirmed that she received “$3,000 plus" from unemployment but said that she was not sure of the exact amount, She stated that she put the money aside in a savings ‘account and is waiting for a letter (ftom unemployment) to send it (back). She offered no proof of this allegation. Ms, Rodriguez stated that she wanted to pay the money back but had to wait fora letter (from unemployment. ‘Ms. Rodriguez stated: “I thought Unemployment would come get me before the Town, | was never sure if we were going to get paid. It was just a precaution.” 2 The proces of cancollng her claim began aftr he was pled an Administrative Leave by the Town on May 8, 2m.Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Page of28 3 ‘On May 12, 2020, following the interview, Ms. Rodriguez supplied information. As of the date ofthis report, neither Ms. Rodriguez, nor her representative, contacted the investigator's office to corrector change any statement in Ms, Rodriguez's interview, although she was told by the investigator at the beginning of the interview that she had the opportunity to do so by contacting Tracy Yentsch in the investigator's office. Ms. Rodriguez did not supply any information in addition to the documents she supplied on the date ofthe interview: B. Interview of Zackery Barker Mr. Barker has been employed by the Town as Account Clerk for approximately two (2) years. He stated that he received an email from Michelle Benivegna on April 29 concerning his ‘unemployment claim. Te claimed that he theu called Ms, Benivegnia and told her that ft was an error and that Union Rep. Paul Lavallee told him during a phone call that they (the members) could file for unemployment “as @ precaution”. He does not remember the date of that ‘conversation. Later in the interview, Mr. Barker stated tha the date of the conversation had to be after March 17°. Ms. Benivegn stated that he said he knew he filed. She sai that inthe phone call he informed her that he was instructed to do so by his Union. He said nothing in that phone call with Ms, Benivegna regarding doing so as a “precaution”, nor has the Union provided any ‘evidence to support this theory ofa “precautionary filing”. Mr. Barker stated that he received an email from the Department of Labor on April 16, 2020 saying that he was enrolled in a temporary layoff classification and did not have to file weekly claims. On April 24, he said he received a second email from the Department of Labor saying that he did have to file weekly claims. Mr. Barker stated that he does not have any documents showing when he filed for ‘unemployment benefits. He acknowledged that he does have an account but said he has not tried‘Attorney Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan June 1, 2020 Page 7 of 28, to access it, Mr. Barker said that he “probably” filed for unemployment benefits on March 17, When he received the email from Atomey Luzzi. Regarding what prompted him to file for ‘unemployment benefits, Mr. Barker said: “I just went by the email fiom Attomey Luzzi and ‘what the Union rep said”. Regarding Attorney Luzzis email, Mr. Barker said that he did not ‘ead the last Line, he jut read the part that was underlined ‘Mr. Barker initially responded to a question of whether he sent a text to any employees in the bargaining unit prior to March 17 indicating that they should file for unemployment, “I don’t know”. Later inthe interview, Mr. Barker said more than once that he didnot text any members of the bargaining unit that they should file for unemployment, Mr. Barker stated that he does not remember seeing any box asking if he was receiving ‘money ftom his employer when he completed the application for unemployment benefits He acknowledged receiving an email fom his supervisor, which originally eame from ‘Attorney Luzzi, extending pay through April 17. Mr. Barker stated that he did not have an ‘mail extending the date they were going to be paid up until May 1 or May 4, He said that he does not remember anyone telling im that. He did not bring it to anyone’s attention that he fled for unemployment. Mr. Barker stated that he did not retract the application. “There was no way.” He said that everything was online, and he could not get in contact. He did not try other methods such as fascimile or the use of regular mail to notify the Department of Labor that he was being paid by the Town, Mr. Barker stated that he did not notify anyone at the Town that he filed for ‘unemployment, He stated that he does not know how much he received in unemployment benefit,ro é ‘Attorney Michael J Luzi RyansRyan Sune 1, 2020 gael Page § of 28 ‘Mr. Barker stated that he does not remember saying loudly on his way out ofthe building after he was placed on Administrative Leave: “My Union told me I could do this”, Mr, Barker also denied that on the day that he was put on Administrative Leave he made a statement saying that Attorney Luzzis email prompted him to file for unemployment benefits. ‘The day after the interview on May 12, 2020, Mr. Barker supplied additional information. As of the date of this report, nether Mr. Barker, nor his representative, contacted the investigator's office to correct or change any statement in Mr. Barker's interview, although he ‘was told by the investigator atthe beginning of the interview that he had the opportunity to do so by contacting Tracy Yentsch in the investigator's office. Mr. Barker did not supply any information in addition tothe documents he supplied onthe date ofthe interview. C. Interview of Jamie Maturo Ms. Maturo has worked for the Town for approximately fifteen (15) years. She is currently employed as an Administrative Assistant, Secretary to the Director of Public Works. ‘Ms. Maturo stated that the frst time she heard about filing for unemployment was by @ text fiom Zack Barker on April 9. She repeatedly stated that the text was the only thing that prompted her to file for unemployment, She said she thought that was what everyone in her ‘Union was doing. Ms. Maturo stated that she filed the application probably within a few days of getting the text from Barker. ‘Ms. Maturo stated that when she was completing the unemployment application, there ‘were things she could not fil in and she asked Barker about that. Barker told her “we'll take care of the rest”, She didnot speak to anyone else from the Union about filing for unemployment When she returned to work at the Town Hall on May 4, Ms, Maturo said she found out ‘hat Loribeth Rodriguez had filed for unemployment. Loribeth told her that she received money and said that Ms. Maturo should check to see ifshe di, It sit important to note that Ms. MaturoAttorney Michael J Lu June 1, 2020 Thetmeentones Page 9 of 28 4d not inform the undersigned in the interview that on May 4 Ms, Rodriguez had told her that, she (Rodriguez) was in the process of contacting the DOL regarding her wrongful receipt of ‘unemployment monies while she was being filly paid by the Town, Ms. Maturo received the payment for unemployment benefits on a Key Bank debit card ‘She suid that she received the debit card in the mail between April 30 and May 4, Ms, Maturo stated that she used the debit card because she thought it was a “stimulus payment” Ms. Maturo stated that when she got the letter ftom unemployment, she did not understand how to read it, She alleged that she did not file @ claim and never got a letter that her application was approved, She said she thought the application was just to have it on file and did not think unemployment would send money without her filing a claim, ‘Ms. Maturo said that che never previously filed a elaim for unemployment, She offered ro supporting evidence regarding this allegation. She said she assumed there was a difference between filing an application and making a claim. She stated that she did not tell anyone at the Town about receiving unemployment benefits, besides Zack and Loribeth, because she assumed she “could send it back and fix i” She acknowledged that, once she found out that the money she received was from ‘unemployment, she did not go to Michelle in HR to tell her. When question by the undersigned, ‘Ms. Maturo did acknowledge that Michelle had helped her resolve work-related issues in the recent past and further stated that there was nothing that made her fee! uncomfortable concerning oing to Michelle, Ms, Maturo said that she tried to file forms to send back the overpayment on May 8? ‘She sai that she did not file the form to send back the payment on April 30 (or any time prio to * Aer leaming tht Me, Barkerand Ms, Roiguez were placed on Adminisative Leave RyaneRyan‘Attorney Miche J. Luzzi RyaneRyan June 1, 2020 tents Page 10 of 28 May 8%) because she did not know what to do. Ms. Maturo acknowledged using the debit card ‘on May 4 and the evening of May 7. Following the date of the interview, May 18, 2020, and up until the date ofthis report, neither Ms. Maturo, nor her representative, contacted the investigator's office to correct or change any statement in Ms. Maturo’s interview, although she was told by the investigator atthe start of the interview that she had the opportunity to do so by contacting Tracy Yentsch in the investigator's office. Further, Ms. Maturo did not supply any information in addition to the information she supplied at the interview. D. Interview of Michelle Renivegna ‘MBs. Benivegna acts as the Town’s Human Resources Director. On April 29, she received an email regarding a Department of Labor claim of potential ‘unemployment liability concerning Zack Barker. She forwarded the email to Barker and told him to let her know ift was an error. After a few minutes, Mr. Barker called Ms, Benivegna and told her that he was instructed by his Union to file the claim. Mr, Barker said nothing about a March 17 email from Attorney Luzzi in this call (On May 4, all of the AFSCME Town Hall bargaining unit employees phy'ially returned to work, Mr. Barker did not communicate in any way with Ms. Benivegna between May 4 and May 7. On May 8, Ms. Benivegna placed Mr. Barker on paid Administrative Leave. Me. Barker ‘old Ms. Benivegna that he was told by the Union to complete the application, After Ms. Benivegna told Mr. Barker that he had to leave, another employee heard him yelling that he was “not the President ofthe Union.” Again, he never said anything about a March 17 email. Ms. Benivegna also placed Loribeth Rodriguez on paid leave on May & after receiving ‘unemployment paperwork showing that she was collecting benefits. When Ms. Benivegna told Ms. Rodriguez that she had to put her on Administrative Leave, Ms, Rodrigues said she “knew itAtorey Michael. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 1, 2020 ee Page Ii of 28 ‘was coming” and said that Mr. Barker had called her. As Ms. Rodriguez was leaving, she sa guess I'll stay home and get paid” (On May 11, Ms. Benivegna placed Jamie Maturo on Administrative Leave, She received notice of Ms. Maturo’s unemployment claim late in the day on Friday, May 8. When Ms Benivegna approached Ms. Maturo on the 11® at approximately 8:00 am, she said that she was planning to go to sce Ms. Benivegna at 8:30, Ms, Maturo told Ms. Benivegna that she thought she was just filing out the form “to be ready”. V. DOCUMENTS A. Relevant excerpts from booklet published by CT Department of Labor ‘entitled “Unemployment Insurance: A Guide tw Collecting Benefits nthe State of Connecticut” “Filing an Initial (New) Claim ‘An initial (or new) claim for Unemployment Insurance should be filed with the Connecticut department of Labor as soon as you are separated from employment ‘+ A claim for benefits is effective (begins) with the Sunday of the week in which you file your claim, + Affer you file, you must select your payment method, Direet Deposit or Debit Card, unless you have previously filed for unemployment benefits and are satisfied with your prior payment method, There are pe ing false statements to obtain benefit‘Attorney Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sine 1, 2020 cmon Page 12 0f 28, Filing a Weekly / Continued Claim Once you have established a new claim or reopened a claim you will need to file weekly claims, known as a continued claim. The exceptions to this are if you are filing @ Vacation Shutdown claim, Shared Work, or Trade Readjustment Allowance claim. In these situations you cannot file weekly claims by using TeleBenefits or our online system. Overpayments Due to Error or Reversal If you knowingly collect benefits based on false or inaccurate information that you intentionally provide when you file your claim, you are committing fraud. Unemployment Insurance fraud is punishable by law and violators could face a number of serious penalties and consequences. If you think you have committed fraud, let us help you address the issue: go to www FileCT on Overpayment Assistance and follow the prompts. (Overpayments Resulting from Fraud, Wilful Nondisclosure or Wilful Misrepresentation of a Material Fact It is a crime to misrepresent or fail to disclose factor to make false statements in order to obtain or increase benefits. A number of techniques, including computerized eross-checking of camings during weeks of unemployment, are used in Connecticut to detect fraudulent claims. To avoid violating the law, you must + Report all work and gross earnings, including tipsION é . ‘Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sane 1, 2020 eee Page 13 of 28 ‘There are severe penalties for submitting false statements or withholding information about employment and earings in order to receive or increase benefits, All work, including self: ‘employment, must be reported when the work is performed, even if you do not receive any payment atthe time. B. Text from Zackery Barker to Town bargaining unit employees on April, 2020 “Hi Al, ‘hope you are remaining safe during this pandemic. I want you alo know that ‘am working on this and will not give up. 1 will fight for what we believe in Paul ssid if you want, we can file for unemployment and get the process going. It ‘could be weeks before Unemployment processes it When you file, please put this down as a lay-off. Last day of work is March 13, 2020, Fill in the information as needed and I will help you. Unemployment will be retroactive from when you first file the elaim even if it won't let you. If for any reason we get paid after the 17th of April, donot file your weekly claim ‘and just leave it alone. Please keep this between ourselves and no one else. 1 “will let you know if there are any other issues going on this week and up until the 17 of April Thank you,” (Emphasis added) C. Email from Attorney Michael Luzzi to Town Supervisors on March 17, 2020,IO™, é ‘Attorney Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 1, 2020 eee Page 18 of 28 Good afternoon, ‘The Mayor ha instructed me to forward te following to your attention. It should be shared with ‘your respective staffs. Today's (March 17, 2020) communication is as follows: Weeks employees will be pid: + All employees (essential and non-essential) will be paid ther regular pay through ‘March 27, 2020. Essential employees have been informed of thet status. Non- essential employees may use their accrued time after March 27, 2020 or they can file for unemployment immediately. Unemployment will inform employees when they are eligible to collect given that the Town is paying employees through the 27%. This ‘payment by the Town is being made to assist employees... [as] much as possible, + Unemployment can be applied for on-line and the link is provided. + Link for filing UL benefits ~ htp://www ctdol state ctu/UT-OnLinefindex, im, temporary lavoff notice + You willbe receiving an official notice of temporary layofT by tomorrow. Please email questions directly to me and copy Michelle, Thank you. D. Email from Attorney Michael Luzzi to Town Supervisors on March 18, 2020 “TollAttomey Michael J. Luzzi RyaneRyan June 1, 2020 ieee Page 15 of 28 ‘The Mayor has asked that I forwatd this to you for circulation Given the unprecedented nature of where we find ourselves with the COVID-19 virus, the subject of how the Town will pay its workforce isa centralise. The Mayor had previously agreed to pay town employee's [sic] thru March 27, 2020. The Mayor will be extending payments for Town employees from March 27, 2020 thru April 17,2020, This wil allow the Mayor and his staff addtional time to meet wit all of the relevant town unions, ‘Thank you.” E, Email from Attorney Michael Luzzi to Town Supervisors on April 13,2020 “Toll ‘The Mayor has asked that forward this to you for circulation, Given the unprecedented nature of where we find ourselves with the COVID-19 virus, the issue. The Mayor had previously subject of how the Town wil pay its workforce isa cent ‘agreed to pay town employee's [sc] thra April 17,2020. The Mayor will be extending payments for Town employees from April 17, 2020 thru May 1, 2020. We will continue to update you on this issue. ‘Thank you.”ns é Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 1, 2020 Soe Page 16 0f28 F. Relevant Parts of Section 31-373 ofthe Connecticut General Statutes See. 31-273. Overpayments; recovery and penalties. Timeliness of appeals. False or misleading declarations, statements or representations. Additional violations and penalties. (b) (1) Any person who, by reason of fraud, wilful misrepresentation or wilful nondisclosure by such person or by another of a material fact, has received any ‘sum as benefits under this chapter while any condition for the receipt of benefits imposed by this chapter was not fulfilled in such person's ease, or has received a greater amount of benefits than was due such person under this chapter, shall be charged with an overpayment and shall be liable to repay to the administrator for the Unemployment Compensation Fund a sum equal to the amount so overpaid to such person. If such person does not make repayment in full of the sum overpaid, the administrator shall recoup such sum by offset from such person's ‘unemployment benefits. The deduction from benefits shall be one hundred per cent of| the person's weekly benefit entitlement until the full amount of the overpayment has bbeen recouped. Where such offset is insufficient to recoup the full amount of the overpayment, the claimant shall repay the remaining amount plus, for any determination of an overpayment made on or after July 1, 2005, interest at the rate of cone per cent of the amount so overpaid per month, in accordance with a repayment schedule as determined by the examiner. (2)... (B) For any determination of an overpayment made on or after October 1, 2013, any person who has made a claim for benefits under this chapter and has Knowingly made a false statement or representation or has knowingly failed to disclose a material fact in order to obtain benefits or to increase the amount of benefits to which such person may be entitled under this chapter shall be subject to a penalty of fifty per cent of the amount of overpayment for the first offense and a penalty of one hundred per cent of the amount of overpayment for any subsequent offense. This penalty shall be in addition to the liability to repay the full amount of overpayment and shall not be confined to a single benefit year. Thirty-five per cent of any such penalty shall be paid into the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund and sixty-five per cent of such penalty shall be paid into the‘Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan June 1, 2020 mettre Page 17 of 28, Employment Security Administration Fund. The penalty amounts computed in this subparagraph shall be rounded to the nearest dollar with fractions of a dollar of exactly fifty cents rounded upward. (3) Any person charged with the fraudulent receipt of benefits or the making of a fraudulent claim, as provided in this subsection, shall be entitled to a determination of eligibility by the administrator that shall be based upon evidence or testimony presented in a manner prescribed by the administrator including in writing, by telephone or by other electronic means. The administrator may prescribe a hearing by telephone or in person at his or her discretion, provided if an in person hearing is requested, the request may not be unreasonably denied by the administrator. () Any person who knowingly makes a false statement or representation or fails 40 disclose a material fact in order to obtain, increase, prevent or decrease any benefit, contribution or other payment under this chapter, or under any similar law of another state or of the United States in regard to which this state acted as ‘agent pursuant to an agreement authorized by section 31-225, whether to be made to or by himself or herself or any other person, and who receives any such benefit, pays any such contribution or alters any such payment to his or her advantage by such fraudulent means (1) shall be guilty of a class A misdemeanor if such benefit, contribution or payment amounts to five hundred dollars or less or (2) shall be guilty of a class D felony if such benefit, contribution or payment amounts to more than five hundred dollars. Notwithstanding the provisions of section 54-193, no person shall be prosecuted for a violation of the provisions of this subsection committed on or after October 1, 1977, except within five years next after such violation has been committed. (Emphasis added.) VL FACTUAL FINDINGStrmey Michael J. Luzi RyansRyan fine 10 Romans, Page 18 of 28 Findings as to Loribeth Rodriguez ‘The first question to be analyzed is whether Loribeth Rodriguez knowingly and improperly collected State unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town, The investigator finds that Ms. Rodriguez did knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits. She also provided false and inaccurate information in this investigation, Ms. Rodriguez was not eredible with regard to a number of statements she made duting hae interview. In addition, she was not forthcoming with information ‘Ms. Rodrigues filed claim for unemployment benefits on April 9, 2020. While she alleges that she just created an account online “as a precaution” and never intended to file a claim for benefits, that is not believable, It is abundantly clear from the Department of Labor Unemployment website that, by submitting the form, the applicant is making a clan fx benefits. In addition, the Unemployment Insurance Guide for Collecting Benefits states tht the claim for benefits is effective with the Sunday of the week in which you file your claim, Other facts that are contrary to Ms. Rodriguez's assertion that she did not intend to actually make a for benefits include the fact that, on the application form, the applicant is asked to state his or her last day of employment. Ms. Rodriguez stated in her interview that she indicated March 17 was her last day of work because that was the last day she went into work at the Town. The applicant is also asked when completing the application form to choose a method to receive the unemployment benefits, Further, when submiting the application form, the signifies his or her intent to apply for unemployment benefits “Claimant” Certainly, when Ms. Rodriguez began receiving unemployment benefit payments, she ‘knew that her claim had been processed by the Department of Labor. She received payments on April 17, April 21, May 4, and May 5. Besides the regular amount for unemployment compensation, each of the four (4) payments included $600 in Economic Stimulus FederalAsana RyaneRyan Pandemic Unemployment Compensation (“FPUC"), Ms, Rodriguez received unemployment ‘compensation payments which total $3,772.00. On the same date Ms. Rodriguez filed her claim for unemployment, Apri 9, she received «text fiom Zackery Barker saying thatthe Union members ean “fle for unemployment and pet the process going”, The text also suid thatthe “Last day of work is March 13, 2020." Prior to filing a claim for benefits and rece ing the text from Mr. Barker, Ms, Rodrigue, received two (2) emails written by Attomey Luzzi and forwarded by her supervisor. ‘The email ‘dated March 18 advised employees that they would be paid by the Town through April 17, This is the same date Ms, Rodriguez was issued her first unemployment payment. On that date, it ean ‘only be concluded that Ms. Rodriguez was well aware that she was receiving both her regular paycheck and unemployment benefits for the same time period. However, she took no action at this time to discontinue her unemployment benefits (On April 21, Ms. Rodriguez was issued her second payment for unemployment benefits ‘Three (3) days later, she received her regular Town paycheck. Stil, she took no action to discontinue her unemployment benefits knowing full well that she was being paid her regular paycheck and being paid unemployment benefits for the same time period based on her claim filed with the Department of Labor, which indicated that her lst day of work was March 17. Ms, Rodriguez stated that she told Mr. Barker that she was collecting unemployment benefits while being paid. However, she acknowledged that she did not contact the Town’s HR the Town’s management to advise them of this fact. Ms, Rodriguez department or anyone els claims that she could not get in touch with anyone at the Town Hall because it was closed. However, she admitted that she received at least one (1) email from her supervisor containing Attorney Luzzi’s note that employees would be paid through March 27. Certainly, she could hhave emailed her supervisor or another Town employee ot even left a voicemail message at the ‘Town Hall if she truly wanted to advise them that she was improperly receiving a paycheck asAttomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 12020 toners Page 20 of 28 ‘well as unemployment benefits. Even after Ms. Rodriguez and the other Town employees returned to work on May 4, she did not contact HR or anyone else in the Town's management to tell them she was collecting unemployment benefits Ms, Rodtiguea said that she did not think she had to tell anyone at Town Hall because she canceled her claim for unemployment benefits| ‘online. Although Ms, Rodriguez stated that she canceled her claim for unemployment benefits ‘on May 4, she did not provide evidence to support that assertion, She did, however, produce evidence that she canceled her claim on May 9. May 4 is the same date Town employees retuned to work at the Town Hall, Ms. Rodriguez was also issued a third unemployment payment om this date. Ms. Rodriguez explained: “I thought Unemployment would come get me before the Town.” She stated that she filled out the application for unemployment benefits “as a ‘vecause she was never sure If they were going to get paid. However, even after recat receiving her regular paycheck and having been issued unemployment payments, which overlapped with the time period for which she was being paid by the Town, she had not taken steps to cancel her claim for unemployment, retum the improperly received unemployment payments or advise the Town that she was improperly receiving both a Town paycheck and ‘unemployment payments Ms. Rodriguez's cavalier attitude toward her improper collection of a Town paycheck and unemployment benefits was displayed on May 8; the day she was placed on Administrative Leave with pay. After she was notified by Ms, Benivegna that she was being placed on leave, Ms. Rodriguez said: “I guess I'll stay home and get paid.” ‘The unemployment application form as well as the Unemployment Insurance Guide to Collecting Benefits make it clear that a claimants false statements or filing to disclose material facts on @ claim for unemployment benefits is @ violation of State law and subjects the claimant to penalties under the law. See Conn. Gen. Stat, Sec. 31-273. Ms, Rodeiguea’s indication on the‘Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 12020 ~fesene Page 21 of 28 unemployment application frm that er last day of work was March 17 was clay a false statement. Ms. Rodriguez patcipated in a conspiracy with Mr. Barker. Per his Apel 9 text message, she filed for unemployment benefits eventhough she knew she was being pid by the Town. In addition, she kept silent regarding her receipt of unemployment monies while being paid by the Town per Mr Baker's Api 9 text message ‘At no point during the interview did Ms, Rodriguez exhibit any remorse for her actions and she never apologized. As previously noted, the investigator informed Ms. Rodrigues at the beginning of the interview that she would be asked a “catch-all question” at the end of the interview when she could add anything that was not covered during the interview. Even then, she did not seize the opportunity to express remorse or apologize for her wrongdoing, B. Findings as to Zackery Barker The second question to be analyzed is whether Zackery Barker knowingly and ing, wages from the Town. The improperly collected State unemployment benefits while rece investigator finds that Mr. Barker did knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits. He, like Ms. Rodriguez, provided dishonest and inaccurate responses when questioned in the investigation In fact, Mr. Barker was exceedingly evasive and dishonest when interviewed in this investigation, He responded to a number of questions with statements tothe effect that he didn’t ‘know the answer or couldn't remember. He also denied facts that are known toe true. For these reasons, Mr. Barker's statements during the investigation, were found not to be eredible. Mr. Barker only acknowledged to the Town that he had made a claim for unemployment benefits after he received an ema from Ms. Benivegna on May 1 telling him that she received notice thet he had applied for benefits. Mr. Barker called Ms. Benivegna on her cell phone and {old her that he was instructed to file by his Union. During his interview, he stated that “it was‘sorey Mish J. Lua RvaneRvan Page of 2 —— ‘an error’ and that Union representative, Paul Lavallee, said that the members could file “as a precaution”. Ms. Benivegna stated that he said he was instructed to file by his Union and that the ‘Union advised him. Barker reiterated this fact after he was placed on Administrative Leave and ‘on both occasions said nothing about a March 17 email By the time he was interviewed Mr. Barker changed his story and claimed that Attorney Luzzi’s email written on March 17 and his phone conversation with his Union representative ‘ere what prompted him to file the claim for unemployment benefits. Initially he stated that he 4d not remember the date ofthe phone conversation with the Union representative, Later inthe interview, he said thatthe conversation must have taken place after Match 17. He also claimed not to know the date that he filed for unemployment benefits, These statements are not believable, especially considering the fact that he sent a text to Union members, which was reccived by both Ms, Rediguez and Ms, Matar on April 9, advising them that they can lle for ‘unemployment and telling them to put March 13 on the unemployment application form for their last day of work. The conclusion that Mr. Barker had something to hide when he sent the text to the Union members is supported by his statement in the text: “Please keep this between ourselves and no one else.” Although, Mr. Barker unbelievably asserted that he does not have any documentation of his unemployment claim and has not accessed his account since filing the application for ‘unemployment benefits, it can be reasonably concluded that Mr. Barker fled his claim for ‘unemployment benefits on approximately April 9 (not March 17 as he stated) or earlier and that hhe indicated on the application that his last day of work was March 13, He acknowledged receiving correspondence fiom the Department of Labor on April 16 telling him that he was enrolled in a temporary layoff classification. He also acknowledged receiving the March 18 ‘mail sent by Attorney Luzzi saying that Town employees would be paid through April 17Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyaneRyan Sane 1.2020 eerie Page 23 of 28 Because of Mr. Barker's evasiveness, I do not know the number of unemployment benefit payments he received, or the amount of those payments. However, based on evidence with respect to Ms. Rodriguez's and Ms. Maturo's claims for benefits, it can reasonably be ‘concluded that Mr. Barker received well over $3,000 in unemployment benefits, which included payments in the amount of $600 in Economic Stimulus FPUC. For the same time period thet, Mr. Barker was collecting unemployment benefits, he was receiving his regular pay from the Town, Mr. Barker acknowledged that, even after he was contacted by Ms. Benivegna about his unemployment claim and telling her it was “an error” and after he retumed to work on May 49, hhe never took any steps to discontinue his claim for unemployment benefits or receipt of payments. Mr. Barker claimed during his interview “there was no way (to cancel). This is clearly not tue given that both Ms, Rodriguez and Ms, Matus were uble to vance ther elas, ‘The Department of Labor's Unemployment website home page states in large, bold type: *41 filed a claim for unemployment because of a temporary shutdown due to COVID-19 however my employer decided to pay me. T would like to cancel my claim for unemployment. Click HERE.** If Mr. Barker could determine how 10 file a claim for benefits on the Department's website, certainly he could figure out how to cancel the claim. However, even if it was beyond his abilities to cancel the claim online, Mr. Barker acknowledged that he never tied to fax or ‘mail anything to the Department of Labor to let them know that he was improperly receiving ‘unemployment benefit payments. Instead, he continued to collect the payments as well as his Town paycheck, ‘The unemployment application form as well as the Unemployment Insurance Guide to Collecting Benefits make it clear that a claimant's false statements or filing to disclose material facts on a claim for unemployment benefits is a violation of State law and subjects the claimantI, é Attomey Michoel 1. Luz RyaneRyan Sune 1,2020 sis Page 24 of 8 to penalties under the law. See Conn, Gen, Stat. See. 31-273. Whatever date Mr. Barker used as his ast day of work on the unemployment application form, it was clearly false since there was not any “last day” ase continued to be paid by the Town, Therefore, Mr. Barker made a false statement on his application for unemployment benefits. He was also, due to his April 9 text message, the leader of a conspiracy followed by two others which remained hidden at his request. ‘At no point during the interview did Mr, Barker exhibit any remorse for his actions and hhe never apologized. As previously noted, the investigator informed Mr. Barker atthe beginning of the interview that le would be asked a “catch-all question” atthe end of the interview when he could add anything that was not covered during the interview. Even then, he did not seize the ‘opportunity to express remorse or apologize for his wrongdoing, Findings as to Jamie Maturo ‘The third question to be analyzed is whether Jamie Maturo knowingly and improperly collected State unemployment benefits while receiving wages from the Town. The investigator finds that Ms. Maturo did knowingly and improperly collect State unemployment benefits. She also provided dishonest and inaccurate responses inthe interview process, Ms, Maturo works as Secretary to the Director of Public Works, She has worked for the ‘Town for approximately fifteen (15) years. Ms. Maturo provided information during theAttorney June 1, 2020 Teteroilmns Page 25 of 28 investigation. However, a numberof statements given during her interview were not ereible,* Like Ms. Rodriguez, Ms. Maturo acknowledged that she completed the application for ‘unemployment benefits but asserts that she did not intend to fle a claim for benefits, For the same reasons as discussed with regard to Ms, Rodrigue2’s claim, Ms. Maturo’s assertion in this regard is not believable. Specifically, (1) the Department of Labor Unemployment website ‘makes clear that, by submiting the form, the applicant is making a claim for benefits, (2) the ‘Unemployment Insurance Guide for Collecting Benefits states that the claim for benefits is effective with the Sunday of the week in which you file your claim, (3) the unemployment application form asks the claimant to state his or her last day of employment, (8) when completing the application form, the applicant is asked to choose a method to receive the ‘unemployment benefit payments, and (5) when submiting the application form, the “Claimant” hie o her intent to apply for unemployment benefits, Ms. Maturo stated that she was prompted to file for unemployment benefits by the text Zackary Barker sent on April 9". She fled her application for benefits on or about April 12°, ‘Ms. Maturo acknowledged receiving a total of four (4) payments from the Department of Labor. The payments were issued on April 18, April 25, May 2 and May 9. Ms. Maturo received her unemployment payments on a Key Bank debit card that artived in the mail. Ms, “Ast cancers Ms. Mauro’ redbiliy,it shoul be noted tha the investigator has learned that, on May 26 while ‘he ivesization was in progress Me. Matos father loseph Mtr, wh isthe Town's formes Mayor approached HR iret, Michelle Benivegna, and Mayor Cafora while they were having inch publi place in Town and talked‘ them in an apparent atemptt inflvence his nvetigation. Ml Matra asled Mayor Crfra op out ‘is auger, lame Maturo, nt "let her Kee her ob”. Me Matto ls shared intimate detail of Ms Mats _etonal life wih Mr. Carfra nan apparent attempt explain why she shouldbe alo Keep her ob with te ‘Town, The investigator does nt make any finding against Ms Mature a rest of her fathers actions bese there is no evidence that she i any Knowledge that ee fhe inpeoperl tempted to inlgencs the vestigation Sothat Ms. Maturo would receive more favorable teatnent tan eer Town emplayees inthe ame canes, “Mr. Maturo's actions attempting to intTere wih this ivesigation ae paiulry during even he at hate involves the improper use of Ste and Federal monies; peifially, unemployment beefs, which are pid by he Town Jal J. Luzzi RyansRyanAtomey Michael J. Luzzi RyaneRyan June 1, 2020 Theses men Page 26 of 28 ‘Maturo used the card to make purchases on May 4 and May 7, She claimed that, when the card arrived, she thought it was “federal stimulus", This is not believable considering the fact thatthe ‘card came in an envelope with large lettering on the front reading: “CONNECTICUT DEPARTMENT OF LABOR”. The card also came with a leter on Connecticut Department of Labor letterhead stating that the Department no longer issues Unemployment Compensation benefits by paper check soit is, instead, issuing the payment on the (enclosed) debit card issued by Key Bank. (On April 24, Ms. Maturo was issued Town paycheck for the period of April 6 through ‘April 19. Ms. Maturo physically returned to work atthe Town on May 4. Although Ms, Maturo acknowledged that Michelle Benivegna in HR was someone she was comfortable speaking with ‘whem a problem arose as Ms. Benivegna had helped her resolve a workplace problem in the past, che did not tell Mo, Benivegna, or anyone else atthe Town Hall besides Me, Basket ainl Ms. Rodriguez, that she was receiving unemployment benefits as well as a paycheck. By not taking ‘his action, Ms. Maturo followed Mr. Barker’s highly inappropriate text message advice to “keep this between ourselves and no one else”. Ms. Maturo claimed that she did not tell anyone ‘because she assumed she “could send it back and fix it Ms. Maturo continued to use the debit card containing the unemployment benefits up until the evening of May 7, On the moming of Friday, May 8, Ms. Rodriguez and Mr, Barker ‘were placed on Administrative Leave, Only after Ms. Rodriguez and Mr, Barker were placed on leave, did Ms. Maturo go on the Department of Labor website and cancel her claim for unemployment benefits. On the morning of Monday, May 11, Ms, Benivegna placed Ms, Maturo on paid Administrative Leave ‘The unemployment application form as well as the Unemployment Insurance Guide to Collecting Benefits make clear that a claimant's false statements or failing to disclose material facts on a claim for unemployment benefits isa violation of State law and subjects the laimant‘Attomey Michael J. Luzzi RyansRyan Sune 1.2020 eee Page 27 of 28 to penalties under the law. See Conn. Gen. Sit Sec. 31-273. Even if as Ms, Maturo claims, she ‘was relying on Mr. Barker's text as an indication that it was okay to apply for benefits, she made 4 false statement when she submitted the application indicating that she was no longer employed. She also used the unemployment benefit payment card aller she had received her Town paycheck, knowing that she was receiving both unemployment benefits and pay for her Town, job for the same time period. Ms. Maturo participated in a conspiracy with Mr. Barker and Ms, Rodriguez. Per his April 9 text message, she filed for unemployment benefits even though she knew she was being paid by the Town. In addition, she kept silent regarding her receipt of ‘unemployment monies while being paid by the Town per Me. Barker's April 9 text ‘At no point during the interview did Ms. Maturo apologize for her actions. Her only statement to this effect was “I apologize for not being smart”, which cannot reasonably be viewed as an exprestion of remorse to the Town anid its taxpayers for her wrongdoing. AS previously noted, the investigator informed Ms. Maturo atthe beginning ofthe interview that she would be asked a “catch-all question” at the end of the interview when she could add anything. that was not covered during the interview. Even then, she did not seize the opportunity to express remorse or apologize for her actions in collecting unemployment benefits while continuing to be paid for work by the Town, Vi. CONCLUSION ‘This investigator finds that Loribeth Rodriguez, Zackery Barker and Jamie Maturo knowingly and improperly collested State unemployment benefits while reeeiving wages ftom the Town. This conclusion is bolstered by the fact that only these three (3) individuals out of a total of twenty-four (24) bargaining unit members who received the same emails from the Town and, presumably, the same text from Mr, Barker filed a claim for unemployment benefits whileaN tel. Lr 8 ie tone RyaneRyan aged o28 they were being peid by the Town. All three (3) provided dishonest and inaccurate responses in the investigation, Respectfully submitted, CH David‘A. Ryan, Je 4