Christiansen v. Employment Appeal Bd.
| Decision Date | 03 October 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. 11–1715.,11–1715. |
| Citation | 822 N.W.2d 745 |
| Parties | Terry CHRISTIANSEN, Petitioner–Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD, Iowa Workforce Development, And West Branch Community School District, Respondents–Appellees. |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
OPINION TEXT STARTS HERE
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Johnson County, Douglas S. Russell, Judge.
An unemployment claimant appeals the denial of benefits. AFFIRMED.
Michael J. Pitton and Sarah C. Brandt of Pitton Law, P.C., Iowa City, for appellant.
Lars G. Anderson of Holland and Anderson, L.L.P., Iowa City, for appellee West Branch Community School District.
Rick Autry of Iowa Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee Iowa Employment Appeal Board and Iowa Workforce Development.
Heard by VOGEL, P.J., and DANILSON and MULLINS, JJ.
This appeal arises from the denial of unemployment benefits to petitionerappellant, Terry Christiansen, by the respondents-appellees, Employment Appeal Board (EAB), Iowa Workforce Development (IWD), and the West Branch Community School District (School District). Christiansen sought unemployment benefits after he was terminated from his position as a middle school teacher, coach, and bus driver by the school district. We affirm.
On Friday, September 19, 2008, Christiansen held football practice for the middle school team at the high school football field. After the practice ended, Christiansen was to drive the students back to the middle school. Christiansen was on the bus waiting for a few students to finish showering when several students in the back rows of the bus began to use their water bottles to squirt water at each other. Christiansen was in the driver's seat in the front of the bus. He yelled at the students to quit squirting water but as the activity continued, Christiansen walked part way down the aisle and repeated his request. As Christiansen turned around to return to the front of the bus, he thought a student—M.K.—raised his middle finger at him in an obscene gesture.
What happened next is highly disputed, but on review we take as true the agency's fact findings unless those fact findings are “not supported by substantial evidence in the record before the court when that record is reviewed as a whole.” Iowa Code § 17A.19(10)(f) (2009); Meyer v. IBP, 710 N.W.2d 213, 218 (Iowa 2006). After seeing the obscene gesture, Christiansen turned again and went to the student he thought was responsible. Christiansen grabbed M.K. by the upper, right arm and propelled him towards the front of the bus. Christiansen told M.K. to get off the bus. M.K. complied, and then called his grandmother for a ride.
That evening, at the high school football game, M.K. told his mother of the incident, who in turn informed Sara Oswald, the middle school principal. Officer Ben Isbell of the West Branch police department was asked to investigate the matter and did so by examining M.K.'s arm and taking photographs later that evening. These photographs showed redness and bruising in the muscular area between the elbow and the shoulder.
M.K.'s parents initiated a student abuse complaint with the School District on September 24, 2008, and Principal Oswald conducted the mandatory investigation (Level I investigation) related to that complaint. Many of the students on the bus were interviewed and Principal Oswald determined that the complaint was well founded. These interviews were video recorded and later transcribed. A further investigation (Level II investigation) was conducted by the West Branch Police Department and in a supplemental report dated October 15, 2008, Officer Isbell concluded that physical abuse did occur.
Christiansen was suspended with pay on October 3, 2008. The superintendent of schools, Craig Artist, recommended Christiansen's contracts be terminated. A hearing was conducted in front of the West Branch Community School Board, on February 9, 2009, in which the School Board decided to terminate Christiansen's employment contracts for misconduct from the September 19, 2008 incident. Christiansen did not appeal this decision.
Christiansen filed for unemployment benefits on March 22, 2009, and the IWD originally allowed benefits in a decision issued April 13, 2009. Superintendent Artist filed a timely notice of appeal and sent a letter to the Appeals Section of the IWD in accord with that notice. Christiansen responded with a motion to dismiss the appeal alleging that only a duly authorized officer of the School Board could act on the School District's behalf. A hearing commenced on January 26, 2010, was continued, and reconvened on March 11, 2010. Included in that record was the jury verdict of “not guilty” to the criminal charge against Christiansen for simple assault stemming from the same incident. On April 27, 2010, finding the School District satisfied its burden to prove misconduct, Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) Seeck reversed the April 13, 2009 IWD decision. Christiansen was ordered to repay the overpayment of benefits already received.
Christiansen appealed this decision to the EAB on May 12, 2010.1 Christiansen filed an application to present additional evidence, including portions of the transcript from his criminal trial, which he claimed would undermine the evidence upon which ALJ Seeck based her findings; the School Board resisted.2 The EAB in a two-to-one decision affirmed and adopted ALJ Seeck's findings of fact and conclusions of law. The dissent opined that the record failed to establish by a preponderance of the evidence that Christiansen grabbed the student and caused the bruises on his arm.
Christiansen filed a petition for judicial review on September 3, 2010. The district court affirmed the EAB's findings in their entirety on September 26, 2011. Christiansen appeals.
When reviewing a district court decision on the validity of agency action, we determine whether the district court correctly applied the law. Auen v. Alcoholic Beverages Div. 679 N.W.2d 586, 589 (Iowa 2004). Under Iowa code section 17A.19(10), our standard of review depends on the aspect of the agency's decision that forms the basis of the petition for judicial review. Burton v.. Hilltop Care Ctr., 813 N.W.2d 250, 256 (Iowa 2012). In doing so, we apply the standards of section 17A.19(10) to the agency action to determine whether our conclusions are the same as those of the district court. Rooney v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 448 N.W.2d 313, 315 (Iowa 1989). If our conclusions are the same, we must affirm; if not, we reverse. Iowa Fed'n of Labor v. Dep't of Job Serv., 427 N.W.2d 443, 445 (Iowa 1988). “The district court, as well as this court, is ‘bound by the [agency's] factual findings if they are supported by substantial evidence in the record.” IBP, Inc. v. Harpole, 621 N.W.2d 410, 414 (Iowa 2001) (quoting Bergen v. Iowa Veterans Home, 577 N.W.2d 629, 630 (Iowa 1998)). To overturn an agency's findings, the decision made would need to be unreasonable or the result of an abuse of discretion. Stephenson v. Furnas Elec. Co., 522 N.W.2d 828, 831 (Iowa 1994).
Before we address Christiansen's issues, we find it helpful to address the School District's assertion that we can affirm the EAB's decision on an alternate ground—that Christiansen failed to exhaust his administrative remedies by not appealing the termination of his contracts, after the School Board found he had committed misconduct. Iowa Code §§ 279.17, 18. Christiansen responds that Iowa law does not require employees to exhaust their administrative remedies for wrongful termination to be eligible for unemployment benefits. While these positions were asserted below, the district court found the issue to be moot after affirming the EAB's decision on different grounds. Both Christiansen and the School District briefed the issue on appeal; the EAB did not.
All administrative remedies must be exhausted before an aggrieved party is entitled to judicial review of an administrative decision. Iowa Code § 17A.19(1); Continental Tel. Co. v. Colton, 348 N.W.2d 623, 626 (Iowa 1984). However, two conditions must be met before we apply this doctrine: an adequate administrative remedy must exist for the claimed wrong, and the governing statutes must expressly or impliedly require the remedy to be exhausted before allowing judicial review. Riley v. Boxa, 542 N.W.2d 519, 521 (Iowa 1996).
The School District's argument fails the first of these two conditions. The claimed wrong here is not the School Board's termination of Christensen's contracts, but the agency's denial of post-termination unemployment benefits. That is, misconduct serious enough to warrant the discharge of an employee is not necessarily serious enough to warrant a denial of benefits. Iowa Code § 96.5(2); Lee v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 616 N.W.2d 661, 665 (Iowa 2000). Misconduct to warrant denial of benefits must be deliberate, intentional, or culpable. Kelly v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 386 N.W.2d 552, 554 (Iowa Ct.App.1986). Teachers' contracts may be terminated for “just cause” or by mutual agreement. Iowa Code § 279.27. “Just cause” is that conduct of a teacher or coach that directly or indirectly significantly and adversely affects what must be the ultimate goal of the school, the high quality education of the school's students. Lundblad v. Sheldon Cmty. Sch. Dist., 528 N.W.2d 593, 596 (Iowa 1995).
This separation of administrative actions is supported by Iowa case law. In accepting the Restatement (Second) of Judgments section 83, our supreme court allowed two independent state administrative tribunals to operate simultaneously in adjudicating different claims based on the same facts. In re Kjos, 346 N.W.2d 25, 28–29 (Iowa 1984) ()....
To continue reading
Request your trial