Kirby v. Employment Security Department
320 P.3d 123
Wash. Ct. App.2014Background
- Thomas, a security officer for PSS, was discharged for insubordination after refusing to write an incident report on June 10, 2011.
- The Department denied unemployment benefits finding misconduct; the ALJ reversed, deeming the conduct a good faith error in judgment.
- The commissioner remanded to address reasonableness of the directive, the circumstances surrounding the incident report request, and claimant’s motivation.
- ALJ found Thomas acted out of apprehension and confusion, not intent to harm, and that the directive on June 10, 2011 was not reasonable.
- The commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings; the superior court affirmed; PSS appeals to the supreme court.
- Court affirms agency decision that Thomas did not commit misconduct disqualifying her from benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Thomas’s refusal to write the incident report misconduct? | Thomas acted from confusion/non-willful intent | Thomas insubordinate; willful disregard of directions | Not misconduct; good faith error in judgment |
| Was the June 10 directive to write the report reasonable? | Directive was not reasonable given context and prior logs | Directive reasonable from employer's perspective | Not misconduct; order not reasonable under circumstances |
| What is the proper standard of review and burden of proof? | Agency findings should be upheld if supported by substantial evidence | Commissioner’s interpretation governs; deference to agency findings | Findings supported by substantial evidence; proper deferential review maintained |
Key Cases Cited
- Harvey v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 53 Wn. App. 333 (1988) (relevance of reasonable directives; misconduct analysis)
- Peterson v. Employment Sec. Dep’t, 42 Wn. App. 364 (1985) (refusal to answer supervisor questions; intentionality examined)
- Verizon Nw., Inc. v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 164 Wn.2d 909 (2008) (administrative review framework; mixed questions of law/fact)
- Hamel v. Emp’t Sec. Dep’t, 93 Wn. App. 140 (1998) (misconduct defined; good faith errors in judgment)
