E.C. v. RCM of Washington, Inc.
92 A.3d 305
D.C.2014Background
- E.C. sought unemployment benefits after being separated from her job for admitting her abusive ex-boyfriend onto a residential facility on three occasions.
- The employer’s policy prohibited unauthorized access to facilities; E.C. knew and acknowledged the policy.
- E.C. had an eleven‑month abusive relationship with M.L. and obtained TPOs/CPOs against him.
- M.L. stalked and abused E.C., influencing her behavior at work and leading to misconduct findings.
- ALJ found no gross misconduct and did not apply § 51‑131, though acknowledged domestic violence overall.
- Court reversed, holding § 51‑131 is remedial and requires a liberal, “entire mosaic” causation approach, with a substantial-factor standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 51-131’s remedial provision applies. | EC contends broad reading of “due to domestic violence.” | RCM and District argue strict nexus to misconduct. | Yes; § 51-131 applies and is liberal in scope. |
| What causation standard governs “due to domestic violence.” | EC urges substantial-factor test linking DV to separation. | District argues narrower causal link. | Substantial-factor standard applies. |
| Should the court consider the entire history of abuse (“entire mosaic”). | EC asserts the entire history of DV must be weighed. | Employer’s conduct limited to three incidents. | Yes, consider entire mosaic of abuse. |
| Did the ALJ properly weigh evidence of domestic violence in determining misconduct? | ALJ failed to meaningfully weigh DV history. | Findings based on misconduct policy and three incidents. | ALJ erred; DV history must inform nexus to misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Richardson v. Easterling, 878 A.2d 1212 (D.C. 2005) ( recognizes broader scope of intrafamily offenses under IFOA)
- Cruz-Foster v. Foster, 597 A.2d 927 (D.C. 1991) (remedial construction; consider entire history of abuse)
- Burton v. Office of Emp. Appeals, 30 A.3d 789 (D.C. 2011) (interpreting ‘notwithstanding’ clause; contextual statute reading)
- Hamilton v. Hojeij Branded Food, Inc., 41 A.3d 464 (D.C. 2012) (remedial statute interpretation and evidentiary weighing)
- Shewarega v. Yegzaw, 947 A.2d 47 (D.C. 2008) (establishes pattern of harassment as evidence of DV)