Mussman v. Kootenai County
150 Idaho 68
| Idaho | 2010Background
- Mussman was a planner in Kootenai County’s Planning and Zoning Department, terminated in 2008 for signing an affidavit for a developer without prior department approval.
- The affidavit contained historical interpretations conflicting with the director's official interpretation of a setback ordinance.
- Clark became director in 2007 and oversaw Mussman; Mussman acknowledged the director's final say on interpretations.
- The County argued Mussman disregarded its interests and violated policies; Mussman argued there was no policy requiring prior approval of affidavits and the affidavit was historical in nature.
- IDL initially found Mussman eligible for unemployment benefits; Appeals Examiner reversed finding of misconduct; Industrial Commission reversed again in Mussman’s favor.
- County appealed to the Idaho Supreme Court; Court affirmed the Commission, holding Mussman was not terminated for employment-related misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Mussman’s discharge for unemployment purposes misconduct? | Mussman argues no policy-required misconduct; affidavit was historical and did not disregard County interest. | County asserts Mussman violated expected conduct by signing affidavits without prior approval, constituting misconduct. | Yes/No: The Supreme Court affirmed the Commission’s finding that Mussman’s discharge was not for misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kivalu v. Life Care Centers of America, 142 Idaho 262, 127 P.3d 165 (2005) (misconduct elements defined; burden on employer)
- Harris v. Electrical Wholesale, 141 Idaho 1, 105 P.3d 269 (2004) (burden of proof and evidence standards for misconduct)
- Beaty v. City of Idaho Falls, 110 Idaho 891, 719 P.2d 1151 (1986) (focus on whether conduct is work-related misconduct)
- Desilet v. Glass Doctor, 142 Idaho 655, 132 P.3d 412 (2006) (whether employer communications render expectations reasonable)
- Hagler v. Micron Technology, Inc., 118 Idaho 596, 798 P.2d 55 (1990) (evidentiary rules in IC proceedings; best evidence/hearsay considerations)
- J.R. Simplot Co., 131 Idaho 318, 955 P.2d 1097 (1998) (employer must prove misconduct with record evidence)
- Dietz v. Minidoka Cty. Highway Dist., 127 Idaho 246, 899 P.2d 956 (1995) (three-part misconduct analysis under Smith v. Zero Defects)
- Wulff v. Sun Valley Co., 127 Idaho 71, 896 P.2d 979 (1995) (deliberate violation of a known rule standard)
- Beaty v. City of Idaho Falls, 110 Idaho 891, 719 P.2d 1151 (1986) (repeated above; included for misconduct framework)