Gilmore v. ATLANTIC SERVICES GROUP, 17 A.3d 558

Gilmore was employed as a bus driver for Atlantic from Jan 2008 to Jun/Jul 2008.
In June 2008 he was incarcerated for 12 days; DOES denied unemployment benefits on Dec 3, 2008 for quitting due to job abandonment.
Gilmore appealed; OAH held a Feb 6, 2009 hearing with supervisor Tillman, fiancée Howard, and Gilmore; no documents admitted.
Tillman testified Gilmore requested time off for an eye injury, then did not return; employer later asserted a job abandonment letter was sent.
Howard testified she learned of incarceration and coordinated efforts to obtain Gilmore’s checks; Jordan retrieved checks and provided them to Howard.
OAH’s April 8, 2009 order affirmed DOES’s decision on grounds of misconduct; court noted lack of clear findings distinguishing gross vs simple misconduct and issues of voluntariness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether OAH properly concluded misconduct as the basis for disqualification	Gilmore argues OAH failed to specify gross vs simple misconduct and to support with substantial evidence.	Atlantic/DOES contends misconduct (gross or simple) was established by absence/abandonment.	No; remand required to specify type and support with findings.
Whether OAH failed to make findings on whether misconduct was intentional	Gilmore asserts lack of findings on intentionality of his absence.	Atlantic asserts abandonment as basis, but failed to prove intentionality.	Remand needed to determine intentionality and flow of facts to misconduct conclusion.
Whether OAH required violations of employer rules to be proven with knowability, reasonableness, and consistent enforcement	Gilmore contends absence of evidence about policy content and enforcement undermines rule-based misconduct finding.	Atlantic relied on policy; policy details not admitted into evidence.	Remand to address policy existence, reasonableness, and consistent enforcement.
Whether the record supports that Gilmore voluntarily quit due to job abandonment	Gilmore’s incarceration and inability to contact employer negates voluntary departure.	OAH implied voluntary quit based on abandonment without adequate findings.	Remand; presumption of involuntary departure not properly rebutted with findings.

Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement Inc., 905 A.2d 177 (D.C. 2006) (standards for substantial evidence and agency findings)
Odeniran v. Hanley Wood, LLC, 985 A.2d 421 (D.C. 2009) (distinction between gross and simple misconduct; definitions)
Doyle v. NAI Personnel, Inc., 991 A.2d 1181 (D.C. 2010) (heightened showing required for gross misconduct; need serious basis)
Morris v. United States Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176 (D.C. 2009) (burden on employer to prove misconduct; standards for absence and willfulness)
Cruz v. D.C. Dep't of Emp't Servs., 633 A.2d 66 (D.C. 1993) (presumption of involuntary departure when employer does not prove voluntariness)
Amegashie v. CCA of Tennessee, 957 A.2d 584 (D.C. 2008) (presumption of eligibility and burden-shifting framework)