Michael J. Beagan v. Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review
162 A.3d 619
| R.I. | 2017Background
- Beagan, a delivery driver employed ~4 years by Kemperle, was given a written warning on March 7, 2013 for insubordinate behavior after disputing a new company policy and overtime pay; he was told next violation would lead to termination.
- Shortly after that meeting, a Facebook post disparaging Beagan’s supervisor appeared; the supervisor (Morancey) was blocked from Beagan’s page but had an anonymous third party view and print the post.
- Morancey testified the Facebook post (and alleged texting/Internet use while driving) motivated the termination; employer forms initially cited insubordination and creating ill-will, not the Facebook post explicitly.
- DLT denied unemployment benefits under G.L. § 28-44-18(a) (disqualifying misconduct); referee and board affirmed the denial; one board member dissented.
- District Court affirmed on de novo review, finding the Facebook post was (barely) connected to work and constituted misconduct; the Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Beagan) | Defendant's Argument (Kemperle) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there is legally competent evidence that misconduct was connected to work | Facebook post was private, blocked, unnamed, not authored on employer device — no workplace connection | Post disparaged supervisor shortly after warning and created ill-will; supervisor saw it via third party, so it affected workplace | No — record lacked legally competent evidence connecting the Facebook post to work; benefits awarded |
| Whether Facebook post amounted to disqualifying misconduct under § 28‑44‑18 | Post protected/private speech; even if offensive, not tied to job duties or a clear policy violation | Post was insubordinate and harmful to supervisor–employee relationship, justifying discharge | Assumed (without deciding) for analysis; Court resolved case on connection prong only |
| Whether District Court exceeded its role by making supplemental fact-finding | Court should not reconstruct facts or weigh credibility; must remand or defer to agency | District Court reconstructed record to determine if decision was supported by evidence | Majority: District Court overstepped by making its own factual findings; should have remanded or reversed if no substantial evidence |
| Burden of proof for employer seeking disqualification | Employer must prove misconduct and connection to work | Employer argued evidence met its burden via testimony and printed Facebook post | Employer failed to meet burden on connection element; Board’s decision reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Foster-Glocester Reg’l Sch. Comm. v. Bd. of Review, 854 A.2d 1008 (R.I. 2004) (standard of judicial review under the Administrative Procedures Act)
- Bunch v. Bd. of Review, 690 A.2d 835 (R.I. 1997) (off-duty conduct may be disqualifying where connected to employment and position’s responsibilities)
- Turner v. Dep’t of Employment Sec., Bd. of Review, 479 A.2d 740 (R.I. 1984) (definition and limits of "misconduct" for unemployment disqualification)
- Rhode Island Temps, Inc. v. Dep’t of Labor & Training, Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 1121 (R.I. 2000) (review limited to whether legally competent evidence supports agency decision)
- Harraka v. Bd. of Review, 200 A.2d 595 (R.I. 1964) (Employment Security Act to be construed liberally in favor of the unemployed)
- Johnston Ambulatory Surgical Assocs., Ltd. v. Nolan, 755 A.2d 799 (R.I. 2000) (scope of certiorari review: any legally competent evidence suffices)