Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission v. Cecil
2012 Ky. LEXIS 158
| Ky. | 2012Background
- Cecil worked as a right-of-way associate for Louisville Water Company from October 29, 2001, until November 2, 2005, under the Code of Conduct and attendance policies.
- The Code required punctuality; tardiness is defined as arriving 10 minutes after start time and three or more tardies in a 90-day period triggers a violation.
- Cecil accrued multiple Code of Conduct violations for tardiness between 2004 and 2005, including July 15, 2004, July 16, 2004, September 21, 2005, and October 7, 2005.
- After three violations within 24 months, Cecil was offered a choice to resign or sign a “last chance”/Post-Decision Leave Statement admitting tardiness and committing to improvement, with potential termination for future violations.
- Cecil refused to sign the statements and was terminated on November 2, 2005; she later argued termination was not for tardiness but for refusing to sign.
- The Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission found she was discharged for misconduct, and the Jefferson Circuit Court affirmed; the Court of Appeals reversed, then this Court reinstated the Commission’s denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Cecil was discharged for misconduct under KRS 341.370(6). | Cecil argues she did not act with willful or wanton misconduct. | LWC contends tardiness and refusal to sign warnings constitute misconduct. | Cecil was discharged for tardiness; misconduct under KRS 341.370(6). |
| Whether the termination was for refusing to sign the warnings rather than for tardiness. | The refusal to sign cannot be the sole basis; tardiness was the true cause. | The refusal to sign the written warnings constituted a breach of a reasonable instruction. | Discharge was for tardiness; refusing to sign was a consequence, but not the dispositive ground. |
| Whether the statutes require a showing of bad faith or willful conduct beyond tardiness to prove misconduct. | Pre-1982 standard demanded willful or wanton conduct; not now required by statute. | Disqualification can rest on acts identified in KRS 341.370(6) without additional bad faith showing. | No extra bad-faith requirement; conduct within KRS 341.370(6) suffices. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Duro Bag Manufacturing Co., 250 S.W.3d 351 (Ky. App. 2008) (clarifies willful or wanton conduct not required under amended statute)
- Burch v. Taylor Drug Store, Inc., 965 S.W.2d 830 (Ky. App. 1998) (defines misconduct in context of unemployment benefits)
- Shamrock Coal Co., Inc. v. Taylor, et al., 697 S.W.2d 952 (Ky. App. 1985) (early standard requiring bad faith or culpability for misconduct)
- Brown Hotel Co. v. Edwards, 365 S.W.2d 299 (Ky. 1962) (administrative findings review standard)
- Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm’n v. Fraser, 625 S.W.2d 852 (Ky. 1981) (substantial evidence standard for agency findings)