[T]hey seem to lack proper documentation and congruency. What is a good way to articulate this?
A: The elements of the able and available issue are: (1) you were offered work; (2) you turned down the work offered; and (3) you did not have good cause for turning down the work offered. You must defeat at least one element to win this issue. So, if the school claims it called you, then you ask the school rep what docmentation it keeps to support the fact that it called you. If the rep said, we don't have documentation -- we just have a list, and we work through it until someone accepts the work. Then you say something like, "So, it's entirely possible that you skipped over my name on the date in question and never called me, correct?" Presumably, the answer to this question is "yes," because the rep has no documentation to support having contacted you. And, that would defeat element #1.
The point here is that using collateral arguments about the school's lack of documentation is only relevant if it resulted in your not being contacted and offered work. Otherwise, if it's esstablished that you were contacted, then it falls to you to explain why you didn't accept the assignment.
Should I pull my phone records showing that I called the district inquiring about work?
A: If your are claiming that you contacted the school and you were told that no work was available on the date in question, then proving that you called is probably useful evidence. Ultimately, however, what matters is whether or not you can prove that you were denied work, and that's mostly about the school's lack of documentation, rather than yours (because your documentation about what you did is self serving and has little evidentiary weight).
Bring payroll stubs from school district B providing evidence that I work for school district B and that I have decline some jobs offers with school district A because I was working for school district B.
A: If you reasonably believed that you would be working for school district B on the day in question, then evidence of your working for district B would be useful.
Should I show the dates I worked for school district A and B or only A?
A: Evidence is only relevant if it tends to prove or disprove an ultimate fact at issue before the court. You have to compile your evidence to meet the elements of proof necessary to win on the issue. Submitting evidence that doesn't go to prove a particular element is a waste of time. It may be useful to show that you were receiving substantially more work from district B, which is why you turned down work in district A, because you were expecting to be working in district B on the date in question. However, this is only viable if you have already admitted to having turned down work for district A. If not, then it doesn't matter which school you've been working for.
I will bring documentation that I had interviews. Should I bring documentation showing illustrating job search efforts?
A: If the goal is to show that you had a specific reason for turning down work on the date in question, then yes, otherwise it's irrelevant.
I am assuming that the district will not bring the actual employees that I spoke with regarding job offers but will bring statements. Can I use the Hearsay rule?
A: In an administrative law hearing, "all relevant evidence is admissible, unless its probative value is substantially outweighed by the risk of unfair prejudice." In plain English, if a particular piece evidence or testimony is relevant, then it comes in the record, hearsay or not, unless you can show that it is so untrustworthy that admitting it would cause the court to make a decision based on wild assertions.
However, even if hearsay evidence is admitted, it cannot be used in isolation to make any finding. Hearsay can only be used supplement nonhearsay testimony or other evidence. Example:
1. School rep states that you were called, and then offers the statement of the caller, who is not present at the hearing. That statement is hearsay, but it's being used to supplement the rep's statement that you were called.
2. Now, suppose that the rep doesn't state that you were called, but only states that he/she has a sworn declaration from the caller stating that you were called.
The first example can be used to find that you were called. The second example cannot, because (believe it or not), the second example does not supplement the rep's testimony.
Evidence law can be damn difficult (easy for me, because I can make up examples to show you how things work. -- in the midst of a hearing, there are probably only a handful of judges in California would would catch the distinction that I've just described, and probably just as few attorneys.
I understand that I do not have to present evidence that is not in my favor per the CUAIB. The tough part is preparing for this hearing is how much do I include and how much do I say? I can be cross examined in this hearing and I know that I have a tendency to offer too much information. Just how short do I keep my answers w/o sounding like I'm avoiding a question?
A: You can say, "yes," "no" or "I cannot recall." And, of course you can refuse to answer on grounds that your answer may tend to incriminate you (but, pleading the 5th Amendment in a UI hearing would be quite unusual -- I'm just adding it to be thorough).
You don't have to expand on any question. It's up to the questioner to try to elicit the answers.
Hope this helps.
And, if you need to contact me again, please put my user id on the title line of your question (“ToCustomerrdquo;), and the system will send me an alert. Thanks!