Adams v. Aspen Water, Inc.
150 Idaho 408
| Idaho | 2011Background
- Adams was employed as an installer by Aspen Water, Sept 2007–Nov 4, 2008, and was terminated for leaving work without permission on Nov 3, 2008.
- He sustained a work-related injury in Oct 2008 and was placed on light duty.
- On Nov 3, 2008, Adams visited the DMV twice for license renewal during work hours without authorization, and later did not return to work.
- Aspen’s employee handbook requires permission for personal matters during work hours; but Aspen historically tolerated short personal errands without notice.
- The Idaho Department of Labor initially denied unemployment benefits for misconduct; the Appeals Examiner found no misconduct; the Industrial Commission reversed, holding misconduct occurred; the issue on appeal is whether substantial evidence supports that finding.
- Adams argues the termination was for non-misconduct reasons (financial distress, workers’ compensation claim) and that the progressive discipline policy justified a warning; Aspen argues the absence violated reasonable expectations of work attendance.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Adams’ termination for employment-related misconduct supported by substantial evidence? | Adams | Aspen | Yes; substantial evidence supports misconduct finding |
| Did Aspen’s tolerance of short personal errands negate misconduct for Adams’ extended absence on Nov 3? | Adams | Aspen | No; conduct amounted to extended absence beyond previously tolerated practice; misconduct found |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. Electrical Wholesale, Inc., 141 Idaho 1, 105 P.3d 267 (Idaho 2004) (substantial evidence standard; employer’s burden mindful of misconduct definition)
- Beaty v. City of Idaho Falls, 110 Idaho 891, 719 P.2d 1151 (Idaho 1986) (focus on whether misconduct is work-related, not reasonableness of discharge)
- Davis v. Howard O. Miller Co., 107 Idaho 1092, 695 P.2d 1231 (Idaho 1984) (discipline not required to precede finding of misconduct; legitimate contemplation of established conduct)
- Folks v. Moscow School Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 933 P.2d 642 (Idaho 1997) (established course of conduct can render an expectation not objectively reasonable)
- Alder v. Mountain States Telephone & Telegraph Co., 92 Idaho 506, 446 P.2d 628 (Idaho 1968) (employer discretion to choose discipline; warning not required for misconduct)