Barr v. Citicorp Credit Service, Inc. USA, 161 Idaho 136

Background

Jessica E. Barr worked for Citicorp Credit Services from August 2009 until her termination on August 26, 2014, as a customer service representative.
Citicorp issued a company-wide directive in December 2013 requiring voluntary time-off (VTO) requests be submitted via an electronic scheduling planner (ESP) rather than by contacting the workforce management group (TCC).
Barr repeatedly contacted TCC for VTO despite the directive, received supervisor coaching in January 2014, received a Final Warning in July 2014, and was suspended and then terminated in August 2014 after further contacts with TCC.
Barr applied for unemployment benefits; IDOL initially granted them, but Citicorp appealed and an Appeals Examiner reversed, finding Barr ineligible for benefits due to misconduct.
The Idaho Industrial Commission de novo affirmed the Appeals Examiner’s decision; Barr appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court arguing employer witnesses gave false testimony and that documentary evidence was not submitted.
The Supreme Court reviewed for substantial and competent evidence and affirmed the Commission’s decision that Barr was discharged for misconduct and therefore ineligible for benefits under Idaho law.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Barr was discharged for misconduct that disqualifies her from unemployment benefits	Barr contends Citicorp provided false testimony, relied on unproduced emails/coaching notes, and the Commission improperly credited employer testimony	Citicorp argued Barr repeatedly violated a clear directive after coaching and final warning, constituting misconduct	The Court held substantial and competent evidence (employer testimony) supported the Commission’s finding of misconduct and affirmed denial of benefits
Whether the Commission improperly weighed evidence or credited testimony without documentary proof	Barr argued the Commission impermissibly credited testimony over the absence of documentary exhibits	Citicorp argued credibility and weight of evidence are for the Commission to decide	The Court held credibility and weight determinations are for the Commission and will not be disturbed where supported by substantial evidence
Whether pro se status alters standards or preserves issues on appeal	Barr relied on general attacks and factual assertions without legal authority	IDOL maintained legal standards apply equally and issues must be specifically raised	The Court held pro se litigants are held to same standards and general, unsupported claims do not preserve issues for appeal
Whether the appellate court should reweigh evidence de novo	Barr sought reversal based on disputing evidence weight	Respondents argued appellate review is limited to substantial evidence review of factual findings	The Court reiterated it will not reweigh evidence and defers to Commission where substantial and competent evidence exists

Key Cases Cited

Bell v. Idaho Dep’t of Labor, 157 Idaho 744, 339 P.3d 1148 (discussing standard of review for Industrial Commission decisions)
Hughen v. Highland Estates, 137 Idaho 349, 48 P.3d 1238 (deference to Commission on credibility and evidence weight)
Henderson v. Eclipse Traffic Control & Flagging, 147 Idaho 628, 213 P.3d 718 (Commission’s role in weighing conflicting testimony)
Gerdon v. Con Paulos, Inc., 160 Idaho 335, 372 P.3d 390 (constitutional deference to Commission findings)
Bach v. Bagley, 148 Idaho 784, 229 P.3d 1146 (requirements for preserving issues on appeal)