Bowman-Cook v. Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority
16 A.3d 130
| D.C. | 2011Background
- WMATA terminated Bowman-Cook for alleged misconduct—failing to accept certified mail during medical absence; ALJ found the rule was known and not consistently enforced, and concluded simple misconduct
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the termination for misconduct supported by intentional conduct? | Bowman-Cook did not intentionally refuse mail. | WMATA proved intentional disregard of receiving mail as required. | No adequate factual basis for intentional misconduct; remand for findings |
| Did the ALJ improperly limit evidence about communications and illness during the absence? | Evidence of communications and illness was excluded. | Evidence beyond certified-mail issue was irrelevant. | ALJ errored; remand for full evidentiary consideration |
| Were the ALJ’s factual findings sufficient to support simple misconduct? | Findings did not establish intentional disregard. | Record supports misconduct as breach of employer interest. | Not adequate; remand for complete findings on notice and intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Morris v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176 (D.C.2009) (standard of review for OAH decisions on facts and rationality)
- Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement, Inc., 905 A.2d 177 (D.C.2006) (grounding review in substantial evidence and rational conclusions)
- McKinley v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 696 A.2d 1377 (D.C.1997) (binding on reviewing court; agency findings control)
- Georgetown Univ. Hosp. v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 916 A.2d 149 (D.C.2007) (agency findings cannot be filled by court if missing)
- Brown v. Corrections Corp. of America, 942 A.2d 1122 (D.C.2008) (remedial nature of unemployment program; merit of findings)
- Doyle v. NAI Pers., Inc., 991 A.2d 1181 (D.C.2010) (distinction between rightful discharge and disqualifying misconduct)
- Keep v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 461 A.2d 461 (D.C.1983) (intent required for misconduct; negligence insufficient)
- Chase v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 804 A.2d 1119 (D.C.2002) (intent may be required for simple misconduct)
- Jadallah v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 476 A.2d 671 (D.C.1984) (remand for factual findings on intent to wrongdoing)
- Cruz v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 633 A.2d 66 (D.C.1993) (liberal construction of unemployment statute; humanitarian purpose)
- Washington Times v. District of Columbia Dep't of Emp't Servs., 724 A.2d 1212 (D.C.1999) (remedial purpose of unemployment compensation)