Clark v. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs.

• Decision Date: 01 September 2016
• Docket Number: S–16–0034
• Citation: 378 P.3d 310,2016 WY 89
• Parties: Billy Clark, Appellant (Petitioner), v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Appellee (Respondent).
• Court: Wyoming Supreme Court

378 P.3d 310

2016 WY 89

Billy Clark, Appellant (Petitioner)

v.State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission, Appellee (Respondent).

S–16–0034

Supreme Court of Wyoming.

September 1, 2016

Representing Appellant/Petitioner: Keith R. Nachbar of Keith R. Nachbar, P.C., Casper, Wyoming.

Representing Appellee/Respondent: Peter K. Michael, Wyoming Attorney General; John D. Rossetti, Deputy Attorney General; Michael J. Finn, Senior Assistant Attorney General; Charlotte M. Powers, Assistant Attorney General.

Before BURKE, C.J., and HILL, DAVIS, FOX, and KAUTZ, JJ.

KAUTZ, Justice.

[¶1] Appellant/Petitioner Billy Clark applied for unemployment insurance benefits after he was discharged from his position as a fuel truck driver for Homax Oil Sales, Inc. (Homax). Appellee/Respondent State of Wyoming ex rel. Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission (the Commission) denied his request for benefits on the basis that he was fired for misconduct connected with his work. Mr. Clark filed a petition for judicial review of the Commission's decision, and the district court affirmed.

[¶2] We, likewise, affirm.

ISSUES

[¶3] Two issues must be addressed in this appeal:

I. Can serious and/or repeated negligence qualify as misconduct under Wyoming law?

II. Was the Commission's decision that Mr. Clark committed misconduct connected with his work supported by substantial evidence?

FACTS

[¶4] Mr. Clark began work as a fuel truck driver for Homax in Casper and Evansville, Wyoming on July 21, 2014. He delivered fuels to various locations, including Homax's convenience stores, with trucks that were compartmentalized so that different fuels could be hauled in the same load. Once he reached his destination, Mr. Clark was responsible for unloading the fuels into the proper tanks. When Mr. Clark was hired, his supervisor, Michael Dwyer, was aware that Mr. Clark had dispensed the wrong fuel into tanks at his previous job. Mr. Dwyer warned Mr. Clark that “mixing product” was not acceptable and could result in termination from his job. In addition, Homax trained Mr. Clark on the procedure for unloading product to avoid placing the wrong fuel in a tank.

[¶5] Nevertheless, in August 2014, Mr. Clark mixed premium and regular unleaded gas during a delivery. Homax was still able to sell the fuel, but Mr. Clark was reprimanded for his error. Mr. Dwyer warned him that there would be no further chances if he unloaded fuel into the wrong tank again.

[¶6] On September 14, 2014, Mr. Clark delivered fuel to one of Homax's convenience stores in Casper. He incorrectly unloaded approximately 8,500 gallons of fuel, valued at approximately $25,000, by placing diesel fuel in the unleaded gasoline tank and unleaded gasoline in the diesel fuel tank. When he realized his mistake, he called Mr. Dwyer and shut down the store to prevent customers from putting the wrong fuel in their vehicles. Mr. Dwyer arranged for the tainted fuel to be removed from the tanks at an approximate cost of $1,000. Mr. Clark continued to work as a fuel truck driver over the next week; however, when Mr. Dwyer consulted with the owner of the company about Mr. Clark's mistake, they decided to terminate his employment effective September 22, 2014.

[¶7] Mr. Clark applied for unemployment insurance benefits. A deputy for the Unemployment Insurance Division determined that he was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits. Homax challenged that determination, and a hearing officer for the Wyoming Department of Workforce Services Appeals Division held a contested case hearing. The hearing officer concluded that Mr. Clark was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. Mr. Clark appealed to the Commission, which also ruled he was disqualified from benefits. He then filed a petition for judicial review, and the district court affirmed the Commission's decision. Mr. Clark filed a timely notice of appeal to this Court.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

[¶8] In unemployment insurance cases, we review the decision of the Commission without considering the decisions of the deputy, the hearing officer or the district court. State ex rel. Dep't of Workforce Servs., Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Kinneman, 2016 WY 79, ¶ 11, 377 P.3d 776 (Wyo. 2016), citing Koch v. Dep't of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2013 WY 12, ¶ 15, 294 P.3d 888, 892 (Wyo. 2013). The Commission is an administrative agency, so our review is governed by Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16–3–114(c) (LexisNexis 2015):

(c) To the extent necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i) Compel agency action unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

(ii) Hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to be:

(A) Arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with law;

(B) Contrary to constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory right;

(D) Without observance of procedure required by law; or

(E) Unsupported by substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing provided by statute.

[¶9] The Commission's findings of fact are reviewed under the substantial evidence standard. Dale v. S & S Builders, LLC, 2008 WY 84, ¶ 22, 188 P.3d 554, 561 (Wyo. 2008) ; Section 16–3–114(c). Substantial evidence means “such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.” Bush v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Comp. Div., 2005 WY 120, ¶ 5, 120 P.3d 176, 179 (Wyo. 2005) (citation omitted). Findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence when we can discern a rational premise for those findings from the evidence preserved in the record. Id. An agency's conclusions of law are reviewed de novo. Moss v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2010 WY 66, ¶ 11, 232 P.3d 1, 4 (Wyo. 2010) ; Dale, ¶ 26, 188 P.3d at 561–62.

[¶10] “Unemployment benefit cases where misconduct is alleged present mixed questions of law and fact.” Aspen Ridge Law Offices v. Wyo. Dep't of Employment, Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 2006 WY 129, ¶ 11, 143 P.3d 911, 916 (Wyo. 2006), citing Hat Six Homes v. State, D.O.E., 6 P.3d 1287, 1291 (Wyo. 2000). This case requires interpretation of the applicable statutes. Statutory interpretation is a matter of law subject to de novo review. DB v. State (In re CRA), 2016 WY 24, ¶ 15, 368 P.3d 294, 297 (Wyo. 2016).

DISCUSSION

A. Can serious and/or repeated negligence qualify as misconduct under Wyoming law?

[¶11] It is undisputed that Mr. Clark did not specifically intend to unload the wrong fuel into the tanks. Homax's representative conceded this during closing argument at the contested case hearing when he stated that Mr. Clark mixed product “not knowingly, but mistakenly.” The legal questions, then, are whether negligence can qualify as misconduct and, if so, under what circumstances. The answers to those questions are found in the relevant statutes.

[¶12] Pursuant to Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27–3–311(f) (LexisNexis 2015), a claimant is disqualified from unemployment benefits if he was discharged for work-related misconduct:

(f) An individual shall be disqualified from benefit entitlement beginning with the effective date of an otherwise valid claim or the week during which the failure occurred, until he has been employed in an employee-employer relationship and has earned at least twelve (12) times the weekly benefit amount of his current claim for services after that date, if the department finds that he was discharged from his most recent work for misconduct connected with his work.

(Emphasis added). Effective July 1, 2014, the legislature adopted the following definition of “misconduct connected with work”:

(xxiv) “Misconduct connected with work” means an act of an employee which indicates an intentional disregard of the employer's interests or the commonly accepted duties, obligations and responsibilities of an employee. “Misconduct connected with work” does not include:

(A) Ordinary negligence in isolated instances;

(B) Good faith errors in judgment or discretion;

(C) Inefficiency or failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity.

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27–3–102(a)(xxiv) (LexisNexis 2015).

[¶13] When interpreting statutes, our goal is to determine the legislature's intent, giving due regard to the purpose and policy behind the enactment. Kunkle v. State ex rel. Wyo. Workers' Safety & Comp. Div., 2005 WY 49, ¶ 11, 109 P.3d 887, 889–90 (Wyo. 2005) ; Petroleum Inc. v. State ex rel. State Bd. of Equalization, 983 P.2d 1237, 1240 (Wyo. 1999). We have said that the Wyoming Employment Security Law is interpreted liberally in favor of claimants. Wyo. Dep't of Employment, Div. of Unemployment Ins. v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 837 P.2d 686, 690 (Wyo. 1992). “We construe the term misconduct ‘in a manner least favorable to working a forfeiture’ because unemployment compensation is part of an employee's compensation, not ‘a gratuity which may be withheld frivolously.’ ” Aspen Ridge, ¶ 16, 143 P.3d at 917, quoting Rissler & McMurry Co., 837 P.2d at 690. The rule of liberal interpretation, however, cannot override the legislature's clear intent. See, e.g ., TPJ v. State, 2003 WY 49, ¶¶ 25–26, 66 P.3d 710, 715 (Wyo. 2003) (stating that although statutes providing for the care and supervision of juvenile delinquents are entitled to liberal effect and practical construction in favor of the child's welfare, the plain language of the statute still controls our...