Davis v. Department of Workforce Services
2015 UT App 93
| Utah Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Petitioner Holly Davis worked as a truck driver for IFCO Systems from Oct. 2011 to Sept. 2013 and was discharged on Sept. 3, 2013 after a series of vehicle incidents causing property damage (approx. $7,200 total).
- Incidents: April 17, 2012 (trailer door hit roll-up door; $1,700 damage; written warning), Aug. 16, 2013 (backed into a customer’s trailer; ~$2,500 damage; manager showed photos and spoke with Davis), and Aug. 29, 2013 (collision while parking; employer terminated Davis that day).
- IFCO issued discipline forms warning that future issues could lead to additional discipline up to and including termination; Davis admitted she was shown photos and accepted responsibility for the Aug. 16 accident.
- Davis applied for unemployment benefits; Department denied benefits, ALJ affirmed denial finding just cause, Board affirmed, and Davis petitioned the Utah Court of Appeals.
- The Board found IFCO established the unemployment-rule elements of culpability, knowledge, and control; Davis challenged only the knowledge element on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether employer proved the "knowledge" element for just-cause discharge | Davis: she did not receive a clear warning that another incident would result in termination and thus lacked required knowledge that her conduct was expected or would be harmful to employer’s interests | IFCO: Davis was told the Aug. 16 accident was unacceptable, shown damage photos, and employer’s discipline forms warned future incidents could lead to termination; she should have anticipated harm to employer from repeated accidents | Held: Affirmed — knowledge element satisfied. Rule requires awareness of expected conduct and that conduct would harm employer, not knowledge that termination would follow; Davis knew the conduct expected and had opportunity to correct |
| Whether employer failed to give an opportunity to correct or follow progressive discipline | Davis: no meaningful chance to correct and IFCO did not follow an alleged progressive-discipline policy | IFCO: no evidence of a formal progressive-discipline policy in effect; employer warned and gave at least one corrective discussion between Aug. 16 and Aug. 29 incidents | Held: Affirmed — Davis had opportunity to correct after manager’s discussion; no proof of binding progressive policy that was violated |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177 (Utah 1997) (standard for reviewing factual findings; substantial-evidence rule)
- Record v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 263 P.3d 1210 (Utah Ct. App. 2011) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Autoliv ASP, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 29 P.3d 7 (Utah Ct. App. 2001) (three-element test for just cause: culpability, knowledge, control)
- Gibson v. Department of Emp’t Sec., 840 P.2d 780 (Utah Ct. App. 1992) (employer must establish each element to deny benefits)