DeGroot v. Employment Sec. Com'n
| Decision Date | 19 February 1985 |
| Docket Number | No. 0433,0433 |
| Citation | 285 S.C. 209,328 S.E.2d 668 |
| Court | South Carolina Court of Appeals |
| Parties | Mary K. DeGROOT, Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION and Fellers and Associates, Architects and Landscape Artists, Respondents. . Heard |
Deborah Weimer, Columbia, for appellant.
William H. Griffin and Sandra D. Bell, Columbia, for respondents.
This is an action for unemployment insurance benefits. Respondent Fellers and Associates discharged appellant Mary K. DeGroot. An Appeals Referee found DeGroot was discharged due to inability, a non-disqualifying condition. Respondent Employment Security Commission reversed, finding DeGroot was discharged for misconduct, and held she was not entitled to benefits. The circuit court affirmed. This appeal raises two questions: (1) is there sufficient evidence to support the Commission's finding, and (2) did the Commission deny DeGroot due process by reviewing the case in her absence? We affirm.
S.C.Code Ann. § 1-23-380(g)(5) (1976 & Supp.1983) establishes courts can reverse or modify administrative decisions if the findings are "[c]learly erroneous in view of the ... substantial evidence on the whole record." Substantial evidence "is something less than the weight of the evidence"; it is "evidence which ... would allow reasonable minds to reach the conclusion ... the administrative agency reached." Ellis v. Spartan Mills, 276 S.C. 216, 277 S.E.2d 590, 591 (1981). Laws v. Richland County School District No. 1, 270 S.C. 492, 243 S.E.2d 192, 193 (1978). This standard of review applies to appeals from the Employment Security Commission. Wellington v. S.C. Employment Security Commission, 281 S.C. 115, 314 S.E.2d 37, 39 (Ct.App.1984); Todd's Ice-Cream v. S.C. Employment Security Commission, 281 S.C. 254, 315 S.E.2d 373, 375 (Ct.App.1984).
In mid-November 1981 Fellers, a small architectural firm, hired DeGroot as its secretary. DeGroot previously worked for other architects. Fellers discharged her in late March 1982. Its Vice President and Office Manager testified DeGroot was discharged for refusal to follow instructions and carelessness. He stated she made too many mistakes in typing specifications and some of her work had to be redone by a part-time secretary. However, DeGroot testified she was discharged because she was unable to keep up with the work; she stated Fellers failed to inform her of its heavy typing load when she took the job. Reviewing the case in her absence, the Commission found DeGroot had not followed specific instructions and was careless. It held her actions manifested "disregard of the behavior ... an employer can rightfully expect from an employee" and constituted misconduct.
S.C.Code Ann. § 41-35-120(2) (1976 & Supp.1983) provides, "Any insured worker shall be ineligible for [benefits if] the Commission finds ... he has been discharged for misconduct." In Lee v. S.C. Employment Security Commission, 277 S.C. 586, 291 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1982) the court held misconduct includes "disregard of the standard of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from an employee", and "intentional and substantial negligent disregard for the employee's interests, duties, and obligations."
The record contains substantial evidence to support the Commission's finding Fellers discharged DeGroot due to misconduct. She had the ability to avoid numerous typographical mistakes and work at the standard her employer could rightfully expect. Also, a part-time secretary had to redo some of DeGroot's work; in Lee the court held an employee who was fired because some of his work had to be redone was discharged for misconduct within the meaning of the statute. Lee, 291 S.E.2d at 379.
We hold the type of...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Medical University of South Carolina
...notice and opportunity to be heard at some point before the agency makes its final decision. See DeGroot v. Employment Security Commission, 285 S.C. 209, 328 S.E.2d 668 (Ct.App.1985) (Employment Security Commission did not violate article I, § 22 by allowing before Appeals Tribunal but not ......
-
Mickens v. Southland Exchange-Joint Venture
...applicable standard of review for appeals from the South Carolina Employment Security Commission. See DeGroot v. S.C. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 285 S.C. 209, 328 S.E.2d 668 (Ct.App.1985). "Substantial evidence" has been defined as something less than the weight of the evidence; it is evidence......
-
Milliken & Co., Pendleton Plant v. South Carolina Employment Sec. Com'n
...we determine the Commission's findings are erroneous, we may reverse or modify the decision. Id.; DeGroot v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 285 S.C. 209, 328 S.E.2d 668 (Ct.App.1985). The Commission found Milliken's witnesses presented only "hearsay ... evidence" and Milliken's witnesses had not o......
-
Grayson v. Carter Rhoad Furniture
...S.E.2d 248 (1991). Substantial evidence, however, is something less than the weight of the evidence. De Groot v. Employment Security Commission, 285 S.C. 209, 328 S.E.2d 668 (Ct.App.1985). Where there is conflicting medical evidence, the findings of fact of the commission are conclusive. Ho......