Harper v. Idaho Department of Labor, 161 Idaho 114

Betty S. Harper worked >10 years as a night auditor at Silverstone Inn; new ownership acquired the hotel in Feb 2013.
Employer implemented a new computer reservation/payment system in Feb 2014; Claimant’s performance declined thereafter and her hours were reduced.
Specific incidents: on May 3, 2014 she returned a deposit without inspecting a room (customer had smoked); on June 7, 2014 she failed to settle credit cards and refused a supervisor’s instruction to retrieve coffee beans from the office.
Employer terminated Claimant for failure to perform duties and insubordination; Department of Labor denied unemployment benefits for misconduct.
Appeals examiner awarded benefits; Industrial Commission reversed after de novo review, finding employment-related misconduct (including insubordination). Claimant appealed to Idaho Supreme Court.

Issue	Harper's Argument	Department/Employer's Argument	Held
Whether Harper was discharged for misconduct disqualifying her from unemployment benefits	Termination was result of new ownership reshaping staff; the incidents reflected management preference, not misconduct	Harper refused a reasonable supervisor directive and failed to perform duties she was capable of doing; conduct met misconduct standards	Affirmed: conduct (insubordination and failure to perform duties) constituted employment-related misconduct disqualifying her from benefits
Whether the Commission’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Argued management bias/new-team theory (raised for first time on appeal)	Commission relied on record evidence of errors, warnings, refusals, and insubordination	Court refused to consider new theory raised on appeal; facts supported Commission’s findings
Whether insubordination requires proof of willfulness or subjective intent	Harper implied context/explanation for refusal	Employer: insubordination is a standard-of-behavior misconduct; subjective intent irrelevant	Court held insubordination fits the standard-of-behavior test; objective reasonableness controls
Whether Delta (Department) should get appellate attorney fees under Idaho Code §12-117	Harper continued appeal without reasonable basis in fact or law	Department requested fees as prevailing state agency	Court awarded attorney fees to Department, finding appeal lacked reasonable basis

Poledna v. Idaho Dep’t of Labor, 158 Idaho 372, 347 P.3d 1186 (2015) (scope of appellate review from Industrial Commission)
Twin Falls Cnty. v. Coates, 139 Idaho 442, 80 P.3d 1043 (2003) (pro se litigants held to same standards as attorneys)
Woods v. Sanders, 150 Idaho 53, 244 P.3d 197 (2010) (no special consideration for pro se litigants)
Copper v. Ace Hardware/Sannan, Inc., 159 Idaho 638, 365 P.3d 394 (2016) (Commission may find misconduct under multiple classifications)
Locker v. How Soel, Inc., 151 Idaho 696, 263 P.3d 750 (2011) (insubordination as standard-of-behavior misconduct)
Bradford v. Roche Moving & Storage, Inc., 147 Idaho 733, 215 P.3d 453 (2009) (issues not raised below are forfeited on appeal)
Roll v. City of Middleton, 105 Idaho 22, 665 P.2d 721 (1983) (no requirement of a precipitating act immediately before termination; course of conduct may constitute misconduct)
Weston v. Gritman Mem’l Hosp., 99 Idaho 717, 587 P.2d 1252 (1978) (course of conduct can constitute misconduct)