Haas v. Texas Employment Com'n

• Decision Date: 20 June 1984
• Docket Number: No. 05-83-00561-CV,05-83-00561-CV
• Citation: 683 S.W.2d 462
• Parties: E.G. HAAS, Appellant, v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Appellee.
• Court: Texas Court of Appeals

Page 462

683 S.W.2d 462

E.G. HAAS, Appellant, v. TEXAS EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION, Appellee.

No. 05-83-00561-CV.

Court of Appeals of Texas Dallas.

June 20, 1984.

Joselle M. Albracht, North Central Texas Legal Services Foundation, Inc., Dallas, for appellant.

Charles J. Quaid, Ronald E. Massingill, Dallas, for appellee.

Before STOREY, WHITHAM and SHUMPERT, JJ.

SHUMPERT, Justice.

This appeal is from a judgment upholding a Texas Employment Commission decision that appellant Haas was not entitled to unemployment benefits because he was guilty of misconduct at work. We agree with the trial court that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision, and consequently, we affirm.

Texas Employment Commission decisions are reviewed under the "substantial evidence trial de novo" standard. TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 6252-13a § 21(g) (Vernon Supp.1984); Texas Employment Commission v. Bell Helicopter International Inc., 627 S.W.2d 524, 526 (Tex.App.--Fort Worth 1982, writ ref'd n.r.e.); Instant Photo, Inc. v. Texas Employment Commission, 650 S.W.2d 196, 197 (Tex.App.--San Antonio 1983, no writ). This standard mandates a trial de novo without regard to the evidence heard by the Commission, unless evidence of the Commission hearing is properly introduced in the trial court. Instant Photo, 650 S.W.2d at 198. Under this standard, the issue is whether the evidence introduced before the trial court shows facts in existence, as of the time the agency decision was made, of such a substantial nature as to reasonably support the decision. Texas Employment Commission v. City of Houston, 616 S.W.2d 255, 258 (Tex.Civ.App.--Houston [1st Dist.] ), writ ref'd n.r.e. per curiam, 618 S.W.2d 329 (Tex.1981); Circuitronics v. Texas Employment Commission, 561 S.W.2d 555 (Tex.Civ.App.--Dallas 1978, writ ref'd n.r.e.). The appellate court's sole function is to decide whether the evidence is such that reasonable minds could not have reached the conclusion the administrative body must have reached in order to justify its actions, Texas Employment Commission v. Riddick, 485 S.W.2d 849 (Tex.Civ.App.--Texarkana 1972, no writ), or stated differently, whether the Commission's decision was arbitrary, unreasonable, capricious, and was without regard to the facts or the law. Circuitronics, 561 S.W.2d at 557.

In the trial court here, a transcript of the Commission hearing was introduced. We may, therefore, consider that transcript as well as the statement of facts compiled in the trial court.

The Texas Employment Commission hearing officer found that Haas sold beer to minors and sold beer and wine to customers for less than the retail price. Haas denied that he ever sold beer to minors or gave discounts to customers, and argues that since his manager Ranous never actually saw him sell alcohol to a minor, that the decision to deny him benefits on the basis of misconduct was arbitrary, without regard to the facts, and was based on circumstantial suspicions only. He contends that the evidence of these alleged violations cannot support the finding of misconduct necessary to deny him unemployment benefits.

We hold that there was substantial evidence to support the Commission's decision denying Haas benefits. Ranous testified at the Commission hearing that he saw Haas accept a student I.D. as identification for the sale of beer. Expanding on this at trial, Ranous stated that a young man entered the store and asked for a six pack of beer. Haas placed the beer on the counter. Ranous told Haas that he would need some identification from the customer. The customer produced a student I.D. which Haas examined and returned, continuing to ring up the sale. Ranous intervened to prevent the sale stating that a student I.D. was insufficient. The store policy was that the only acceptable identification was a driver's license or a Department of Public Safety identification card, and that without proper identification, the store policy was to assume the person was a minor. All employees were informed of this policy, and Ranous testified that Haas was previously warned personally.

Another reason given for Haas' discharge was that he gave discounts to customers. Ranous saw Haas ring up a price which was considerably less than the marked price for some merchandise. The store policy was to not give discounts to anyone, and employees were reminded of this policy at least once.

TEX.REV.CIV.STAT.ANN. art. 5221b-3 (Vernon Supp.1984) provides in pertinent part An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

(b) If the Commission finds he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his last...