Keanini v. Akiba, 22116.

Citation996 P.2d 280,93 Haw. 75
Decision Date17 March 2000
Docket NumberNo. 22116.,22116.
PartiesLarry K. KEANINI, Sr., Appellant-Appellee, v. Lorraine H. AKIBA, Director of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations, State of Hawai`i, Appellee-Appellant, and Trans Hawaiian, Inc., Appellee-Appellee.
CourtHawaii Court of Appeals

Frances E.H. Lum, Deputy Attorney General, for appellee-appellant.

Gary J. Maxwell for appellant-appellee.

BURNS, C.J., WATANABE and LIM, JJ.

Opinion of the Court by LIM, J.

In the second appeal before us in this unemployment insurance benefits case, Appellant Director (Director) of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) appeals from the second circuit court's October 6, 1998 order and its November 12, 1998 final judgment thereon reversing the DLIR's employment security appeals officer's (appeals officer) denial of unemployment insurance benefits to Appellee Larry K. Keanini, Sr. (Claimant).

We hold in this opinion that Claimant's conscious decision to drive without no-fault insurance, when he knew or should have known that his job—which required him to maintain a valid driver's license—would be in jeopardy if he chose to drive uninsured, was a wilful or wanton disregard of his employer's interests and thus constituted misconduct connected with work disqualifying him from unemployment insurance benefits. We therefore reverse and remand for entry of judgment in favor of the Director and Claimant's employer.

BACKGROUND

Our opinion in the first appeal in this case, Keanini v. Akiba, 84 Hawai`i 407, 935 P.2d 122 (App.1997), described the general background of the case and the genesis of that first appeal:

Claimant was employed as a bus driver for Trans Hawaiian, Inc. (Employer) from July 11, 1986 to July 22, 1993. In May 1993, while off duty, Claimant was stopped and cited for, among other charges, driving his car without no-fault insurance coverage. Claimant was subsequently convicted and his driver's license was suspended for three months, effective July 23, 1993.
On July 23, 1993, Claimant informed Employer that his license had been suspended. Since his driver's license was necessary for his job as a bus driver, Claimant volunteered to perform any other duties that Employer might have available. Employer did not, however, assign Claimant any duties after July 22, 1993. One month after being informed that Claimant's license was suspended, Employer sent a letter to Claimant stating that he was terminated from employment "effective immediately."
Claimant subsequently filed for unemployment benefits. The DLIR denied his application on the basis that Claimant voluntarily left employment without good cause.1 Claimant filed a request for Reconsideration and Appeal. After a hearing, the appeals officer of the DLIR (Appeals Officer) issued a decision affirming the denial of benefits. Claimant next appealed to the Second Circuit Court, which also affirmed the denial of benefits.

Id. at 410, 935 P.2d at 125 (footnote added).

On Claimant's appeal from the circuit court's February 10, 1995 judgment against him, we held:

[T]hat the appeals officer of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations (DLIR) erred by applying the wrong test for determining when an employee has voluntarily left work. We further conclude that Claimant did not voluntarily leave his work, but rather, was discharged. Therefore, we vacate the February 10, 1995 judgment of the circuit court denying Claimant unemployment benefits. We remand the case to the circuit court, with instructions that it likewise remand the case to the appeals officer of the Department of Labor and Industrial Relations for a determination of whether Claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with work2 and thus disqualified for unemployment benefits pursuant to [Hawai`i Revised Statutes (HRS)] § 383-30(2)(1993).

Id. at 409-410, 935 P.2d at 124-125 (footnote added).

On remand, the appeals officer determined that Claimant had been discharged for "misconduct connected with work," and once again denied him unemployment insurance benefits. The appeals officer made the following pertinent Findings of Fact (FsOF), which the parties to this appeal do not dispute:

2. The [C]laimant worked for a tour company from July 11, 1986, to August 24, 1993. His last day of work was on July 22, 1993.
3. The [E]mployer hired the [C]laimant as a tour driver. At times during his employment, he held various other jobs, but his last job was as a tour driver. The [C]laimant reported on his separation statement dated August 24, 1993, that he worked for the [E]mployer as a "bus driver."
4. The [E]mployer discharged the [C]laimant by letter dated August 24, 1993, because he was "no longer qualified to perform the position which [he][was] hired for," due to the suspension of his driver's license.
5. In May 1993, while off duty, the [C]laimant received traffic citations for, among other violations, driving his private automobile without auto insurance.
6. On July 23, 1993, a court of law found the [C]laimant guilty of the traffic violation and suspended his State of Hawai`i drivers' license.
7. The suspension was for three months with the condition that the [C]laimant [obtain] automobile insurance (SR-22) coverage. If he failed to obtain this insurance coverage, the suspension would be for three years.
8. The [C]laimant notified the [E]mployer of the court's decision on July 23, 1993, and was removed from his duties.
9. The [C]laimant's auto insurance had lapsed sometime in 1992. He did not renew this insurance coverage because of the costs and because, as explained at the October 13, 1993, hearing, he "chose" not to renew this insurance because he was not an American citizen, but a Hawaiian national. The [C]laimant concedes that he is an American citizen.
10. The [C]laimant knew that he could either lose his license or be required to pay a fine if he [was] convicted for driving his automobile without insurance coverage.
11. The [E]mployer required the [C]laimant to have a valid State of Hawai`i drivers' license and a clean traffic abstract to work as a driver and to maintain his CDL license. The claimant understood these job requirements.
....
13. As of October 13, 1993, the [C]laimant had not obtained automobile insurance because he could not afford to purchase such coverage.
14. The [E]mployer could not allow an unlicensed driver to operate its vehicles because of the potential adverse liabilities to the company.
15. The [E]mployer attempted to find other work for the [C]laimant after notice of his license suspension to maintain his employment in view of his length of employment with the [Employer]. However, as the [Employer] was undergoing downsizing, there was no other work to which he could have been assigned. Had the [C]laimant retained his driver's license he would have continued to work since he was not targeted for lay off and driver work was still available to him.

The appeals officer also made the following conclusions of law (CsOL), in pertinent part:

Although the act that lead to the loss of his license occurred while off duty, the [C]laimant had a material duty to the [E]mployer to have a regard for the [E]mployer's interests both while on and off duty
....
The [C]laimant's off-duty conduct that lead to the suspension of his driver's license and subsequent discharge, therefore, was work connected as it adversely affected his ability to drive the [E]mployer's buses to an "appreciable degree."
The [E]mployer had a reasonable expectation that the [C]laimant, as a bus driver, would maintain his valid driver's license while operating its vehicles and take reasonable steps to ensure his retention of this license to continue his employment with the [Employer].
....
The [E]mployer required, and the [C]laimant understood, that he needed a valid State of Hawai`i drivers' license and a clean traffic abstract to work as a tour driver for the [E]mployer. Despite this knowledge, the [C]laimant voluntarily chose to operate his vehicle without automobile insurance coverage knowing that he could lose his driver's license if caught. The [C]laimant's loss of his license was material to his employment as it was a legitimate and reasonable job requirement. Since there was no other work to assign the [C]laimant despite an effort to place him in a job that did not require this license, the situation allowed the [E]mployer no choice but to remove him from duty.
Had [Employer] allowed the [C]laimant to operate its vehicle knowing that he did not have the requisite license, the [E]mployer would have exposed itself to potential harm and adverse liabilities.
Based upon the foregoing, therefore, the [C]laimant knowingly disregarded reasonable job requirements that, if violated, would adversely offend the [E]mployer's interests and ultimately affect his ability to perform the driving duties he knew he owed the [E]mployer and for which he was hired. Such conduct showed a wilful disregard of the [E]mployer's interests and constituted a substantial breach of the duties he owed his [E]mployer. The [E]mployer discharged the [C]laimant for misconduct connected with work.

On appeal, the circuit court reversed the appeals officer's decision, and held, in pertinent part:

The issue before the Appeals Officer, as well as before the Court, is whether the evidence would support a finding of misconduct within the meaning of [Hawai`i] Administrative Rule[s] Section 12-5-51.
....
The Appeals Officer was in error in finding that [Claimant] had committed misconduct. [Claimant] had engaged in an isolated incident, which had occurred off-duty, while driving his personal automobile. As such, his conduct does not rise to the level of wilful or wanton behavior required to sustain the Appeals Officer's finding of misconduct.
While benefits should not be given to those who do not deserve them, unemployment insurance laws must be liberally construed to give life to the beneficent purposes for which they
...

To continue reading

Request your trial
9 cases
  • Director v. KIEWIT
    • United States
    • Hawaii Court of Appeals
    • January 8, 2004
    ...in its consequences. Chock v. Bitterman, 5 Haw.App. 59, 64, 678 P.2d 576, 580 (1984) (citations omitted). Keanini v. Akiba, 93 Hawai'i 75, 79, 996 P.2d 280, 284 (App.2000) (ellipses omitted; some brackets in the Accordingly, in deciding "whether the circuit court was right or wrong in its d......
  • In re Hgea, Afscme, Local 152, Afl-Cio
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • November 13, 2007
    ...Hawai`i 191, 195, 953 P.2d 569, 573 (1998). "Hence, an agency's statutory interpretation is reviewed de novo." Keanini v. Akiba, 93 Hawai`i 75, 79, 996 P.2d 280, 284 (App.2000). Hoopai v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 106 Hawaii 205, 214, 103 P.3d 365, 374 (2004) (footnote On questions of constitutio......
  • State v. Friedman
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • April 6, 2000
  • Medeiros v. Labor and Indus. Relations
    • United States
    • Hawaii Supreme Court
    • September 1, 2005
    ...is discharged for misconduct connected with work. The Intermediate Court of Appeals spoke to this point in Keanini v. Akiba, 93 Hawai`i 75, 86, 996 P.2d 280, 291 (App.2000): With respect to the legislative purpose, Claimant cites the general principle that the "Hawai`i Unemployment Security......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT