Beagan v. R.I. Dep't of Labor & Training
Decision Date | 19 June 2017 |
Docket Number | No. 2014–187–Appeal (A.A. 13–133),2014–187–Appeal (A.A. 13–133) |
Citation | 162 A.3d 619 |
Parties | Michael J. BEAGAN v. RHODE ISLAND DEPARTMENT OF LABOR AND TRAINING, Board of Review et al. |
Court | Rhode Island Supreme Court |
For Claimant: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
For Defendant: Valentino D. Lombardi, Esq. Donald G. Elbert, Jr.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and Indeglia, JJ.
The claimant, Michael J. Beagan, filed a petition for writ of certiorari to this Court pursuant to the Administrative Procedures Act, G.L. 1956 § 42–35–16, seeking review of a decision of the District Court affirming the denial of unemployment benefits to him. Following his termination from employment with the defendant, Albert Kemperle, Inc.1 (Kemperle, Inc. or employer), the Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training (DLT) denied Beagan's application for unemployment benefits on the basis that he had been discharged for "disqualifying reasons" pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28–44–18 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act2 and was therefore not entitled to such benefits. After exhausting his administrative remedies, Beagan sought review in District Court, where DLT's decision was affirmed. We issued a writ of certiorari; and, for the reasons stated herein, we quash the judgment of the District Court.
Beagan was employed by Kemperle, Inc. as a full-time delivery driver for approximately four years before he was discharged on March 7, 2013. Shortly before his termination, Kemperle, Inc. had issued a new "accident policy" that Beagan had initially refused to sign. According to Beagan's manager, Henry Morancey, Beagan raised concerns over this new policy with other employees and began to cause a "ruckus." On March 6, 2013, Morancey clarified this new policy to Beagan in a conversation, after which Beagan agreed to sign the policy. During that conversation, Beagan also voiced concerns that he was not being paid 2.5 hours for overtime work each week.4 Following their exchange, Morancey wrote an email to the owner of Kemperle, Inc., Ronald Kemper, stating:
The following day, Morancey called Beagan into his office, intending to terminate his employment because, according to Morancey, the previous day the two "had some * * * words and [Beagan] [had taken] a couple of personal shots at [him]." He indicated that, although "normally" an employee was given three written warnings before being terminated, because "things were getting * * * pretty bad between" the two, "[he] felt it was in everyone's best interest to let [Beagan] go." Morancey testified that, while he was speaking to Beagan, Beagan "got teary-eyed and stuff" and that Morancey "kind of took a little bit of pity on him" and decided to give him another chance. Instead of terminating Beagan's employment, Morancey gave him a written notice;5 Beagan apologized, signed a copy of the email Morancey had sent to Kemper as well as the written notice, and acknowledged that he had exhibited insubordinate behavior. Beagan was informed that the next violation would result in termination. Morancey then explained what occurred next:
He later described that Beagan had spoken in a "smug manner" when he indicated that Morancey would not be able to find out what he says on Facebook. A post made on Beagan's Facebook page that day read: 6 This post appears to have been made three hours prior to Morancey accessing Facebook.7 When Beagan returned from his morning deliveries, Morancey informed him that his employment was being terminated. Beagan recalled Morancey mentioning Facebook at that time, but he left the premises without any further discussion.8
On March 18, 2013, Beagan filed a claim for unemployment benefits with DLT. The DLT form completed by Kemperle, Inc. noted the reason for Beagan's discharge as: Additionally, Kemperle, Inc.'s "employer statement," again describing the cause of Beagan's termination, quoted the language of the written warning, described that Beagan was angry about the new policy and that, after signing the written policy, Neither of these forms referenced any Facebook post as the cause of discharge.
On April 22, 2013, the director of DLT denied Beagan's application because it found that Beagan had been discharged due to "unprofessional behavior in the workplace" and was disqualified from receiving benefits because his "actions were not in [the] employer's best interest[ ]" pursuant to § 28–44–18.
Beagan timely appealed this determination to the appeal tribunal (referee) pursuant to § 28–44–43.9 On May 29, 2013, a hearing was held before the referee. At the hearing, both Beagan and Morancey testified. In addition to recounting the incidents of March 6 and 7 (as summarized herein), Morancey testified that "the Facebook posting was the reason [Beagan] was let go, ultimately." He also noted that the reason he terminated Beagan's employment,
At the close of the hearing, the referee issued a written decision affirming the director's denial of benefits. In his decision, the referee made the following findings of fact:
The referee concluded that:
Beagan appealed the referee's decision to the full board of review (the board) pursuant to § 28–44–47. On August 2, 2013, the board affirmed the referee's decision, finding that there was a proper adjudication of the facts and a proper application of the law. The board declared the decision of the referee "to be the decision of the [b]oard * * * and incorporated by...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blais v. R.I. Airport Corp.
...Procedures Act, G.L. 1956 chapter 35 of title 42, our review is limited to questions of law. Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training , 162 A.3d 619, 625-26 (R.I. 2017). "This Court does not substitute its judgment for that of the agency concerning the credibility of witnesse......
-
Banki v. Fine
...credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence concerning questions of fact." Id. (quoting Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training , 162 A.3d 619, 626 (R.I. 2017) ). "Although we afford great deference to the factual findings of the administrative agency, ‘questions ......
-
Ret. Bd. of the Employees' Ret. Sys. of Providence v. Corrente
...concerning the credibility of witnesses or the weight of the evidence concerning questions of fact." Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training , 162 A.3d 619, 626 (R.I. 2017) (quoting Tierney v. Department of Human Services , 793 A.2d 210, 213 (R.I. 2002) ). Pursuant to § 42–3......
-
City of Providence v. R.I. State Labor Relations Bd.
... ... RHODE ISLAND STATE LABOR RELATIONS BOARD and RI COUNCIL 94, AFSCME, LOCAL UNION 1339, Defendants. C. A. No. PC-2018-5355 ... training Carmody to do clerical work for workers' ... compensation claims ... concerning questions of fact."' Beagan v. Rhode ... Island Department of Labor & Training , 162 A.3d 619, ... ...