Sellers v. Employment Appeal Bd.
Decision Date | 30 March 1995 |
Docket Number | No. 4-547,4-547 |
Citation | 531 N.W.2d 645 |
Parties | Robert J. SELLERS, Appellant, v. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and Alpha Painting, Appellees. |
Court | Iowa Court of Appeals |
Dennis P. Marks of Legal Services Corp., Council Bluffs, for appellant.
William C. Whitten, Employment Appeal Bd., for appellees.
Considered by DONIELSON, C.J., and HAYDEN and HABHAB, JJ.
The petitioner, Robert Sellers, was employed as a seasonal painter for Alpha Painting from September 1991 until October 12, 1992. In the past, Sellers was verbally warned several times by the company's owner, Mr. Gilliland, his work performance must improve. The employer claims Sellers understood if his work did not improve he would lose his job.
On October 12, 1992, Sellers and two other painters were assigned a painting job on which the priming and scraping had been completed. Gilliland stated it appeared the three painters only applied two gallons of paint when normally a single painter could paint an average of two or three gallons of paint in one day. Apparently only three-quarters of the house was painted. Sellers claimed he did not apply much paint because he had been busy scraping and priming wood. Sellers also claimed the weather conditions prevented the application of more paint. Sellers was discharged on October 13, 1992, for the failure to perform the job after being warned.
The Employment Appeal Board ultimately denied Sellers' claim for unemployment benefits on the basis his poor work performance after being verbally warned regarding it constituted misconduct disqualifying him from receiving unemployment benefits.
On August 5, 1993, Sellers filed a timely petition for judicial review asserting the Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and affected by an error of law.
On March 8, 1994, the district court entered a decision affirming the Board's decision. The court determined the decision was supported by substantial evidence and not affected by an error of law. Sellers appeals.
The appeal is controlled by our scope of review. A court's review of agency action is severely circumscribed. Burns v. Board of Nursing, 495 N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993). The administrative process presupposes judgment calls are to be left to the agency. Id. Nearly all disputes are won or lost there. Id. (citing Leonard v. Iowa State Bd. of Educ., 471 N.W.2d 815, 815-16 (Iowa 1991)). Thus the court may reverse, modify, or grant other appropriate relief only if agency action is affected by error of law, is unsupported by substantial evidence, or is characterized by abuse of discretion. Iowa Code § 17A.19(8) (1993); Burns, 495 N.W.2d at 699.
Iowa Code section 96.5(2) provides a claimant is disqualified for unemployment benefits "[i]f the division of job service finds that the individual has been discharged for misconduct in connection with the individual's employment." Iowa Administrative Code section 345-4.32(1)(a) defines misconduct:
Misconduct is defined as a deliberate act or omission by a worker which constitutes a material breach of the duties and obligations arising out of such worker's contract of employment. Misconduct as the term is used in the disqualification provision as being limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
Our supreme court has repeatedly held this definition accurately reflects the intent of the legislature. Reigelsberger v. Employment Appeal Bd., 500 N.W.2d 64, 66 (Iowa 1993) (citation omitted); Kleidosty v. Employment Appeal Bd., 482 N.W.2d 416, 418 (Iowa 1992) (numerous citations omitted).
Breithaupt v. Employment Appeal Bd., 453 N.W.2d 532, 535 (Iowa App.1990) (citations omitted). An employer has the burden of proving a claimant is disqualified for benefits because of misconduct. Sallis v. Employment Appeal Bd., 437 N.W.2d 895, 896 (Iowa 1989) (citations omitted).
Sellers argues there was not substantial evidence to support a finding his termination was a result of misconduct. We disagree.
Evidence is substantial if a reasonable person would find it adequate to reach the given conclusion, even if a reviewing court might draw a contrary inference. Mercy Health Ctr. v. State Health Facilities Council, 360 N.W.2d 808, 811-12 (Iowa 1985). In this case, there was evidence Sellers had a history of working slower than he was capable of doing. Sellers' performance...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Blasdell v. Linnhaven, Inc.
...process presupposes judgment calls are to be left to the agency. Nearly all disputes are won or lost there." Sellers v. Emp. Appeal Bd. , 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995) (citation omitted). This court is "not free to interfere with any agency finding where there is a conflict in th......
-
Pongdara v. Employment Appeal Board, No. 8-802/08-0789 (Iowa App. 10/29/2008)
...warrant a denial of benefits." Gaborit v. Employment Appeal Bd., 743 N.W.2d 554, 557 (Iowa Ct. App. 2007); Sellers v. Employment Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct. App. 1995). Application of the administrative code of misconduct to the facts determines whether Pongdara is ineligible ......
-
Palo v. Iowa Bd. of Regents
...“severely circumscribed.” See Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 641 N.W.2d 823, 839 (Iowa 2002) ; Sellers v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct.App.1995). Nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level; the cardinal rule of administrative law is that judgmen......
-
Jordan v. Emp't Appeal Bd.
...is “severely circumscribed.” Greenwood Manor v. Iowa Dep't of Pub. Health, 641 N.W.2d 823, 839 (Iowa 2002) ; Sellers v. Emp't Appeal Bd., 531 N.W.2d 645, 646 (Iowa Ct.App.1995). Nearly all disputes are won or lost at the agency level; the cardinal rule of administrative law is that judgment......