Nelson v. Department of Employment Sec.
| Decision Date | 16 December 1982 |
| Docket Number | No. 48725-1,48725-1 |
| Parties | , 35 A.L.R.4th 686 Eleanor M. NELSON, Petitioner, v. The DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY of the State of Washington, Respondent. |
| Court | Washington Supreme Court |
Spokane Legal Services Center, Richard Smith, Norman R. McNulty, Jr., Spokane, for petitioner.
Kenneth O. Eikenberry, Atty. Gen., John M. Sells, Asst. Atty. Gen., Olympia, for respondent.
Eleanor Nelson was a cashier for Cowles Publishing Company. On June 26, 1979, Nelson notified her supervisor at Cowles she recently had been arrested for shoplifting. Subsequently, she pleaded guilty to the charge. She received a $50 fine, a 10-day suspended jail sentence, and a 3-month deferred sentence. After advising her supervisor of the disposition of her shoplifting case, Nelson was discharged. There was nothing during her appearance in court or at the time of her arrest which served to identify her employer. The shoplifting incident occurred off her employer's premises after working hours. The basis for Nelson's discharge, however, was the employer's concern about her trustworthiness in handling cash and a fear that the conviction would affect Nelson's relationship with other employees. She does not claim to have been improperly discharged.
After losing her job, Nelson applied for unemployment compensation from the Department of Employment Security. The Department initially denied benefits because of "misconduct connected with work". RCW 50.20.060. A departmental appeal tribunal reversed the denial of benefits, but was in turn reversed by the Commissioner of the Department. The Commissioner ruled attempted theft is "misconduct" and is "directly connected with the work" where the theft has a direct effect on the employer's confidence and trust in the employee. Nelson appealed the denial of benefits to the Spokane County Superior Court. The court concluded the act of shoplifting was not connected with her work and the denial of benefits by the Commissioner was clearly erroneous and an error of law. The Court of Appeals subsequently reversed the Superior Court and denied the benefits. Nelson v. Department of Empl. Sec., 31 Wash.App. 621, 644 P.2d 145 (1982). We reverse the Court of Appeals and order Nelson's benefits reinstated.
The statute which controls the granting of benefits in this case is RCW 50.20.060, which reads:
An individual shall be disqualified from benefits beginning with the first day of the calendar week in which he or she has been discharged or suspended for misconduct connected with his or her work and thereafter until he or she has obtained work and earned wages of not less than the suspended weekly benefit amount in each of five calendar weeks. An individual who has been discharged because of a felony of which he or she has been convicted or has admitted committing and which is connected with his or her work shall be disqualified from receiving any benefits for which base year credits are earned in any employment prior to the discharge.
The question we are called upon to resolve is the meaning of the phrase "misconduct connected with his or her work". This is a case of first impression.
The Court of Appeals established a 3-part test to determine whether off-duty misconduct is connected with work so as to justify denial of unemployment benefits:
[T]he employer must show ... that the employee's conduct (1) had some nexus with her work; (2) resulted in some harm to the employer's interest; and (3) was in fact conduct which was (a) violative of some code of behavior impliedly contracted between employer and employee, and (b) done with intent or knowledge that the employer's interest would suffer.
Nelson, 31 Wash.App. at 629, 644 P.2d 145. See Levold v. Department of Empl. Sec., 24 Wash.App. 472, 604 P.2d 175 (1979); Willard v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 10 Wash.App. 437, 517 P.2d 973 (1974).
Plaintiff urges us to reject the test of the Court of Appeals and to adopt the standards set forth in Kempfer, Disqualifications for Voluntary Leaving and Misconduct, 55 Yale L.J. 147 (1945):
The concept of connection with the work is one which can best be delimited by the gradual process of inclusion or exclusion as the cases arise, rather than by an attempt to frame a precise definition. Circumstances to be considered are whether the act occurred during the hours of employment, whether it occurred on the employer's premises, whether it occurred while the employee was engaged in his work, and whether the employee took advantage of the employment relation in order to commit the act. However, the presence or absence of any one of these circumstances is not conclusive.
55 Yale L.J. at 166. Plaintiff would go further and require any action by an employee to be on the job before it could constitute misconduct. We believe confining RCW 50.20.060 to activities on the job is too narrow. There may well be occasions when a reasonable person would conclude misconduct off the job is in fact connected with the work of the employee. As to the Kempfer standards, they are not really standards at all and seem to us to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Feagin v. Everett, E
... ... taken to the hospital, members of the Marion County Sheriff's Department went to the accident scene to investigate and to insure that no other ... Arlington Hotel v. Employment" Security Division, 3 Ark.App. 281, 625 S.W.2d 551 (1981) ... \xC2" ... to apply the elements enunciated by the Washington Supreme Court in Nelson v. Employment Security Department, 98 Wash.2d 370, 655 P.2d 242 (1982), in ... Department of Empl. Sec., supra, with one change. The Court of Appeals required the employer to ... ...
-
Employment Sec. Com'n of Wyoming v. Western Gas Processors, Ltd.
... ... Department of Revenue and Taxation of State of Wyoming v. Casper Legion Baseball Club, Inc., 767 P.2d 608 (Wyo.1989). See Zezas Ranch, Inc. v. Board of ... Nelson v. Department of Employment Sec., 98 Wash.2d 370, 655 P.2d 242, 244 (1982) (quoting Giese v. Employment Division, 27 Or.App. 929, 935, 557 P.2d 1354 ... ...
-
Macey v. State, Dept. of Employment Sec.
... Page 308 ... 110 Wn.2d 308 ... 752 P.2d 372 ... Steven MACEY, Petitioner/Appellant, ... STATE of Washington, DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, Respondent ... No. 53824-7 ... Supreme Court of Washington, ... March 31, 1988 ... Review Granted May 31, 1988 ... It characterized the Boynton definition as general and verbose ... In the meantime, this court had decided Nelson v. Department of Empl. Sec., 98 Wash.2d 370, 655 P.2d 242 (1982), an off-the-job conduct case. We reasoned that where off-duty off-premises ... ...
-
Henson v. Employment Sec. Dept. of State
...113 Wn.2d 374 ... 779 P.2d 715 ... Thomas M. HENSON, Appellant, ... EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT OF the STATE of Washington, Respondent ... No. 55879-5 ... Supreme Court of Washington, ... Sept. 28, 1989 ... [779 P.2d 716] ... The Macey test, however, applies only to on-duty misconduct, as opposed to the off-duty test established in Nelson v. Department of Empl. Sec., 98 Wash.2d 370, 375, 655 P.2d 242 (1982). Because Macey only applies to on-duty conduct, we must first [779 P.2d 718] ... ...
-
In Willful Disregard of the Employment Security Act: Culpability and the Determination of Disqualifying Misconduct by the Courts
...(1996), review denied, 130 Wash. 2d 1004, 925 P.2d 989 (1997). 19. See, e.g., Nelson v. Dept. of Employment Sec., 98 Wash. 2d 370, 375, 655 P.2d 242, 245 (1985); Peterson, 42 Wash. App. at 370, 711 P.2d at 20. WASH. REV. CODE § 50.04.293 (1993). 21. See, e.g., Wilson v. Employment Sec. Dept......