Nolan v. Employment Appeal Bd.
| Decision Date | 09 February 2011 |
| Docket Number | No. 0-886 / 10-0678,0-886 / 10-0678 |
| Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
| Parties | ELIZABETH M. NOLAN, Petitioner-Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and IOWA WORKFORCE DEVELOPMENT, Respondent-Appellee. |
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Scott County, James E. Kelley, Judge.
A former employee appeals from the district court's decision affirming the Board's conclusion that she engaged in misconduct significant enough to disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits. REVERSED.
Elizabeth Nolan, Davenport, appellant pro se.
Richard Autry, Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Mansfield, P.J., and Danilson and Tabor, JJ.
A fired employee asks us to decide whether she engaged in misconduct significant enough to disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits when she twice referred to her boss as a "bitch" in private phone conversations with former and current colleagues. Because misconduct in this context must rise to the level of a deliberate act constituting a material breach of work duties and this employee did not intend for the indelicate references to be shared with her boss, we reverse the denial of benefits.
Handicapped Development Center (HDC) is a non-profit organization supporting people with disabilities; the center operates eight group homes in Davenport. HDC hired Elizabeth Nolan on February 28, 2008. Nolan was working as a residential case manager on October 31, 2008, when HDC program director Courtney Brankovic fired her for what the employer termed "insubordination and gross misconduct."
The events leading to Nolan's discharge unfolded at a Halloween dance where another HDC employee, Patricia Overbeck, asked Nolan to speak with a troubled client who was assigned to a different case manager. Nolan spoke to the young woman both at the dance and later visited the client at her apartment after she told Nolan she had thoughts of suicide. On October 30, 2008, director Brankovic called Nolan into her office to present her with a memorandum advising her that she needed to "focus on [her] own work" and should refrain from consulting with clients who were not on her caseload. Brankovic testified atthe administrative hearing that the memorandum was just "a reminder" regarding appropriate contact with program participants and was not a disciplinary action that would go into Nolan's personnel file. During their meeting, Brankovic asked Nolan if she had called Brankovic a "bitch" in a voice mail message left for Katie Wymore, a former HDC case worker who had moved to a position with the Department of Human Services (DHS) on October 24, 2008. The DHS is a funding source for HDC.
Nolan acknowledged that she had used the derogatory term for her supervisor. Nolan explained in her testimony at the administrative hearing that "it was no hidden secret that [Wymore] and [Brankovic] did not get along" and that Wymore left HDC because she was frustrated with Brankovic. Nolan considered Wymore to be her friend and recounted that "we had ongoing conversations about the difficulties we were having with [Brankovic]." Nolan did not intend for the message to be shared with Brankovic: "It was just a statement between [Wymore] and I." Wymore nevertheless shared the voice mail with another HDC case manager, who in turn brought the information to Brankovic's attention.
The morning after she met with Brankovic, 1 Nolan called Patricia Overbeck on her cell phone before work hours. Nolan wanted to inform Overbeck, who was a resident counselor, that Brankovic was upset with Nolan for visiting the program participant who was not on her caseload—because Overbeck "was the one who initiated the whole thing to begin with." Nolancomplained to Overbeck that Brankovic was treating her unfairly and again referred to Brankovic as a "bitch." Overbeck reported the phone call to her own supervisor because she "was not comfortable" with being put in the middle of the personnel situation. Overbeck's supervisor passed the information on to Brankovic. At Brankovic's request, Overbeck wrote a statement memorializing Nolan's phone call. Brankovic fired Nolan that afternoon.
Nolan filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits on November 2, 2008. On December 1, 2008, Iowa Workforce Development (IWD) informed her that she was not eligible for benefits because she was discharged from work for insubordination. Nolan appealed the denial and requested an "in person" hearing before the agency. Brankovic submitted a letter on behalf of HDC asserting that Nolan's termination was based on "gross misconduct and insubordination" and seeking to uphold the denial of benefits. An administrative law judge (ALJ) with IWD's unemployment appeals section held a hearing on January 5, 2009.
On January 9, 2009, the ALJ affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits. The decision relied on Myers v. Employment Appeal Board, 462 N.W.2d 734, 738 (Iowa Ct. App. 1990), in reaching the following conclusion:
The use of profanity or offensive language in a confrontational, disrespectful, or name-calling context may be recognized as misconduct, even in the case of isolated incidents or in incidents where the target of the offensive name-calling is not physically present to directly hear the comment.... The claimant's insubordination toward her supervisor and unprofessional conduct shows a willful or wanton disregard of the standard of behavior the employer has the right to expect from an employee, as well as an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests and of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.
Nolan appealed the ALJ decision to the Employment Appeal Board (the Board). On February 27, 2009, the Board adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and affirmed the denial of unemployment insurance benefits. Nolan petitioned for judicial review, arguing that the ALJ's reliance on Myers was misplaced because the facts in this case are "totally different" from the facts found to constitute misconduct in Myers.
On March 22, 2010, the district court found that the agency's finding of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence and affirmed the Board's denial of benefits. The court found:
[S]ubstantial evidence in this record supports the finding that the Petitioner referred to her direct supervisor by a derogatory word, beginning with the letter "b" and usually meaning a female dog, by two instances, one to a former employee who worked for a government agency with which the employer had a business relationship. There is substantial evidence in the record that also supports a finding that the Petitioner made the same reference on the day after she was confronted by her supervisor about the previous statement to the former employee, calling her by the same name.
The district court also found substantial evidence that Nolan "violated a work rule by speaking to a client who was not assigned to Petitioner's supervision."2
Nolan now appeals from the district court's ruling.
We review claims concerning unemployment benefits under the rubric of the Administrative Procedure Act, Iowa Code Chapter 17A (2009). Titan Tire Corp. v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 641 N.W.2d 752, 754 (Iowa 2002). On appeal from ajudgment entered on judicial review of agency action, our task is to determine whether the district court correctly applied the law. See Gaffney v. Dept of Empt Servs., 540 N.W.2d 430, 433 (Iowa 1995). We review the district court's decision by applying the standards of section 17A.19 to agency action to determine if our conclusions are the same as those reached by the district court. Univ. of Iowa Hosps. & Clinics v. Waters, 674 N.W.2d 92, 95 (Iowa 2004).
We are bound by the agency's findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence when the record is reviewed as a whole. Sharp v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 479 N.W.2d 280, 282 (Iowa 1991). Conversely, we are not bound by the agency's legal interpretations and may correct misapplications of the law. See Ellis v. Iowa Dept of Job Serv., 285 N.W.2d 153, 156 (Iowa 1979). When the question is how to apply the law to the facts, "[w]e allocate some degree of discretion in our review of this question, but not the breadth of discretion given to the findings of fact." Meyer v. IBP, Inc., 710 N.W.2d 213, 219 (Iowa 2006).
When searching for the operable standard of review, the Meyer court highlighted the importance of pinpointing the precise claim of error on appeal:
The employer bears the burden of proving that a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits because of substantial misconduct within the meaning of Iowa Code section 96.5(2). Myers, 462 N.W.2d at 737. Because our unemployment compensation law is designed to protect workers from financial hardships when they become unemployed through no fault of their own, we construe the provisions "liberally to carry out its humane and beneficial purpose." Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. v. Empt Appeal Bd., 570 N.W.2d 85, 96 (Iowa 1997). "[C]ode provisions which operate to work a forfeiture of benefits are strongly construed in favor of the claimant." Diggs v. Empt Appeal Bd., 478 N.W.2d 432, 434 (Iowa Ct. App. 1991).
In her pro se brief, Nolan...
To continue reading
Request your trial