Hodge v. US Security Associates, Inc.
306 Mich. App. 139
| Mich. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Claimant worked for US Security Associates as a security guard from Sept 21, 2008, to Feb 9, 2011, ending with termination for rule violations.
- On Nov 11, 2008 claimant signed the Security Officer’s Guide acknowledging that unauthorized use of client facilities or equipment could result in immediate termination.
- At Detroit Metro Airport claimant used a client computer to look up departure information for a passenger; anonymous complaint followed.
- Disciplinary report was drafted; claimant signed; reassignment contemplated but later terminated for accessing the client computer in violation of policy.
- Unemployment benefits were denied under MESA for misconduct; ALJ affirmed; MCAC affirmed; circuit court reversed and found the conduct was a good-faith error in judgment, not misconduct.
- The court ultimately affirmed the circuit court’s reversal, holding the conduct did not constitute misconduct under MCL 421.29(1)(b).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did claimant's computer use constitute misconduct under MESA? | Claimant: good-faith error in judgment, not misconduct. | Respondent: deliberate disregard of rules; misconduct. | Not misconduct; unlawful conduct not shown. |
| Was the circuit court's review properly grounded in law and evidence under Const 1963 art 6 and MCL 421.38(1)? | Circuit court properly analyzed law applying undisputed facts. | Circuit court impermissibly invaded agency’s fact-finding. | Circuit court correctly applied the law to the facts. |
Key Cases Cited
- Carter v Employment Security Comm, 364 Mich 538 (1961) (definitions of misconduct under MESA)
- Wickey v Employment Security Comm, 369 Mich 487 (1963) (distinguishing law questions from fact questions in reviewing agency decisions)
- Tuck v Ashcraft’s Market, Inc, 152 Mich App 579 (1986) (good-faith error in judgment not misconduct)
- Razmus v Kirkhof Transformer, 137 Mich App 311 (1984) (safety violations not necessarily misconduct; intent to aid may negate)
- Laya v Cebar Const Co, 101 Mich App 26 (1980) (undisputed facts; questions presented as questions of law)