State, Employment Sec. Dept. v. Evans, 23317

CourtSupreme Court of Nevada
Citation111 Nev. 1118,901 P.2d 156
Docket NumberNo. 23317,23317
PartiesSTATE of Nevada, EMPLOYMENT SECURITY DEPARTMENT, Stanley P. Jones, in His Capacity as Executive Director of The Nevada Employment Security Department, Harold Knudson, in His Capacity as Chairman of The Nevada Employment Security Department Board of Review, Appellants, v. Marilyn R. EVANS, Respondent.
Decision Date24 August 1995
OPINION

SPRINGER, Justice:

The district court reversed a decision of the Employment Security Department which denied Marilyn Evans' unemployment benefits. Evans lost her job because she had been arrested and was forced to remain in jail pending trial because she could not afford bail. She was terminated during the time that she was in jail awaiting trial. The district court correctly held that Evans' missing work because she could not afford to post bail was not sufficient ground to deny benefits.

There are three possible statutory grounds for denial of unemployment benefits: (1) NRS 612.380--voluntarily leaving employment without good cause; (2) NRS 612.383--discharge for crimes committed in connection with employment; and (3) NRS 612.385--misconduct connected with work. None of these three statutory grounds are implicated in this case. See also Clevenger v. Employment Security Dep't, 105 Nev. 145, 149, 770 P.2d 866, 868 (1989) ("Nevada law requires that an employee's misconduct be connected with his or her work before that person can be deemed ineligible for unemployment benefits").

The facts of this case are not in dispute. Neither Evans' pre-trial incarceration nor her criminal acts were connected with her employment. Further, Evans failure to be available for work was due to her pretrial incarceration which was predicated on her inability to obtain bail, not her criminal conduct.

Evans is guilty of no "misconduct" and no "deliberate violation or disregard on [her part] of standards of behavior which [her] employer has the right to expect." Barnum v. Williams, 84 Nev. 37, 41, 436 P.2d 219, 222 (1968). It was impossible for Evans to appear for work, and she dutifully notified her employer of this fact. Her absence from work was neither deliberate nor voluntary. There being no statutory or other legal basis for denying unemployment insurance benefits to Evans, the judgment of the district court is affirmed.

ROSE and SHEARING, JJ., concur.

STEFFEN, Chief Justice, with whom YOUNG, Justice, joins, dissenting:

Respectfully, I dissent.

I intend no disrespect for respondent Marilyn R. Evans, but the majority's reasoning would be just as applicable if respondent had been apprehended committing a residential burglary--an activity that would not be connected to her employment. I cannot accept the proposition that such a result was ever intended or countenanced by Nevada's statutory scheme.

Three tiers of administrative review all resulted in the determination that Evans was not entitled to unemployment compensation. In my opinion, they were correct in their rulings. Evans was arrested and incarcerated on a charge of cruelty to animals. Ultimately she was convicted of the charge. Her employer, Cactus Pete's, granted her three separate thirty-day leaves of absence before terminating her.

When Evans filed her request for unemployment benefits after her release from jail, she had been off work for almost seven months and had been discharged for nearly three months. Her patient employer was forced to incur an increase in its employment contributions wrought by the change in its experience rating resulting from the district court's ruling in favor of Evans.

The district court reversed the affirmation of denial of benefits by the Employment Security Board of Review on grounds that Evans' off-duty criminal conduct and consequent unavailability for work did not constitute an adequate factual and legal nexus to her employment to warrant denial of benefits. As noted above, under this rationale, it would have made no difference whether Evans'...

To continue reading

Request your trial
7 cases
  • Irving v. Emp't Appeal Bd.
    • United States
    • Iowa Supreme Court
    • June 3, 2016
    ...not establish misconduct. Id.A similar result was reached by the Supreme Court of Nevada in the divided decision of State v. Evans, 111 Nev. 1118, 901 P.2d 156, 156–57 (1995). In that case, the claimant was arrested and lost her job because she was forced to remain in jail pending trial and......
  • Fennell v. Board of Review
    • United States
    • New Jersey Superior Court — Appellate Division
    • February 7, 1997
    ...of Missouri, 841 S.W.2d 255 (Mo.Ct.App.1992) (evidence of lack of guilt of charges would permit benefits); State, Emp. Sec. Dept. v. Evans, 111 Nev. 1118, 901 P.2d 156 (1995) (3-2 In Arizona eligibility is particularly fact-sensitive under the agency's promulgated guidelines. Magma Copper C......
  • Clark County Sch. Dist. v. Bundley
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • December 28, 2006
    ...See, e.g., Hilton Hotels, 102 Nev. at 608, 729 P.2d at 499; Kraft, 102 Nev. at 194, 717 P.2d at 585; State, Emp. Sec. Dep't v. Evans, 111 Nev. 1118, 1119, 901 P.2d 156, 156-57 (1995) (recognizing that work absences will disqualify a person from receiving unemployment benefits only if the ab......
  • State Emp't Sec. Div. v. Murphy
    • United States
    • Nevada Supreme Court
    • March 31, 2016
    ...to unemployment benefits. Based on the plain language of the statute and narrowly construing State, Employment Security Department v. Evans, 111 Nev. 1118, 901 P.2d 156 (1995), we conclude that an employee who is terminated as a result of missing work due to incarceration, and who is subseq......
  • 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