Farris v. The Department of Employment Security
2014 IL App (4th) 130391
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Farris was discharged in Jan. 2011 from Strout Crossing, LLC’s pig facility for violating a strict biosecurity policy.
- Biosecurity procedures required showering and changing clothes when moving between clean and dirty areas to prevent contamination.
- Strout sought unemployment benefits; claims adjudicator found eligibility issue based on misconduct; referee found eligibility; Board reversed and denied benefits.
- Circuit court reversed the Board after administrative review, prompting Department, Director, and Board to appeal.
- Court holds Department has standing to appeal and that Farris’s conduct constituted misconduct under 602(A) due to its potential harm to the employer.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Do the Department and Board have standing to appeal a circuit court reversal? | Farris argues lack of employer participation bars appeal. | Department/Board have standing as guardians of the unemployment fund. | Yes, the Department, Director, and Board have standing to appeal. |
| Did Farris’s biosecurity violation constitute misconduct under 602(A) despite no actual harm? | Violation lacked actual harm, so no misconduct. | Violation was deliberate, willful, and had potential to harm Strout. | Yes, it constitutes misconduct because it had potential to cause harm. |
| What standard governs review of Board's misconduct determination? | Board’s finding should be treated as error absent harm. | Board’s mixed question of law and fact governs review; should affirm if not clearly erroneous. | Board’s decision affirmed; not clearly erroneous. |
Key Cases Cited
- Braun v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 108 Ill. 2d 119 (1985) (standing to appeal adverse decisions by a state board)
- Stone v. Department of Employment Security Board of Review, 151 Ill. 2d 257 (1992) (Board may appeal adverse appellate decisions)
- Manning v. Department of Employment Security, 365 Ill. App. 3d 553 (2006) (harm concept in misconduct analysis; potential harm included)
- Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. App. 3d 446 (1998) (context of potential harm in misconduct)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (misconduct defined; standard of review)
- Walls v. Department of Employment Security, 2013 IL App (5th) 130069 (2013) (reviewing Board findings as mixed questions of law and fact)