Keller v. Ameritel Inns, Inc.
434 P.3d 811
Idaho2019Background
- Keller worked as a housekeeper for AmeriTel from April 2016 until June 2017 and missed multiple shifts late in pregnancy due to nausea/dehydration.
- AmeriTel had a policy disciplining excessive absences and requiring notice of tardiness/absences, but did not define the allowed means of notice.
- On June 2, supervisor Black was to give Keller a write-up, but instead offered a leave of absence; Keller agreed and asked to meet the next day.
- Keller was ill and attempted to notify Black by text for June 3 and June 4; the June 4 text did not transmit and AmeriTel treated the missed shift as a voluntary quit.
- AmeriTel informed Keller (on June 5) that her failure to notify on June 4 meant she had quit; Keller applied for unemployment, was denied, then the appeals examiner and the Industrial Commission found she was discharged (not a voluntary quit or misconduct) and entitled to benefits.
- AmeriTel appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court, arguing for a bright-line rule that a one-day unnotified absence is a voluntary quit and that the Commission’s findings lacked substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Keller) | Defendant's Argument (AmeriTel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a one-day absence without notice is a per se voluntary quit under I.C. § 72-1366(5) | No bright-line rule; facts control whether absence equals voluntary quit | Court should adopt a bright-line rule: one-day unnotified absence (when able to notify) is per se voluntary quit | Rejected bright-line rule; quit/discharge is a fact-intensive, case-by-case inquiry |
| Whether Commission’s finding that Keller was discharged (not quit) is supported by substantial evidence | Keller argued she attempted to notify, agreed to leave of absence, and was told she had not quit | AmeriTel contended Keller no-called/no-showed June 4 and therefore voluntarily quit | Affirmed: substantial competent evidence supports finding Keller was discharged |
| Whether Keller’s June 4 absence constituted misconduct disqualifying benefits | Keller argued the missed text was unintentional and employer previously accepted texts as notice | AmeriTel argued failing to notify violated policy and was misconduct | Commission found absence unintentional, texts were accepted previously, and discharge was for excessive absences, not misconduct — affirmed |
| Whether appellate fees should be awarded to Keller or the Department | Keller/Dept sought fees/costs as sanctions for frivolous appeal | AmeriTel argued appeal was justified | Court declined to award fees (but awarded costs to Keller and the Department) |
Key Cases Cited
- Thrall v. St. Luke's Reg'l Med. Ctr., 157 Idaho 944 (2015) (quit vs. discharge is a factual question for the Commission)
- Clay v. BMC W. Truss Plant, 127 Idaho 501 (1995) (test is reasonableness; no bright-line quit rule)
- Doran v. Employment Sec. Agency, 75 Idaho 94 (1954) (absence without notice considered in quit analysis but not dispositive)
- Jackson v. Minidoka Irrigation Dist., 98 Idaho 330 (1977) (discharge test: employer words/actions must reasonably signal termination)
- Barr v. Citicorp Credit Serv., Inc. USA, 161 Idaho 136 (2016) (appellate review limited to questions of law; factual findings upheld if supported by substantial and competent evidence)
- Uhl v. Ballard Med. Prods., Inc., 138 Idaho 653 (2003) (definition of substantial and competent evidence)