Peterson Vet, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
2017 IL App (3d) 150676
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Kara Timmerman worked as a veterinary technician for Peterson Vet from July 30, 2013, until her discharge February 10, 2014; she was paid a higher rate as a CVT.
- At hire she listed "CVT" on the employer's application and signed attestations that the information was true; her Illinois CVT license had expired January 31, 2013.
- Co-workers and supervisors testified Timmerman repeatedly identified herself as a CVT and signed safety-meeting sheets as a CVT; she admitted at termination that her license had lapsed.
- Employer discharged Timmerman for allegedly misrepresenting her certification; a claims adjudicator and referee found misconduct and denied benefits.
- The Department of Employment Security Board of Review reversed, finding the false statement not material to hiring (it affected pay, not hire), and awarded unemployment benefits.
- The trial court reversed the Board; the appellate court reviews the Board’s decision under the clearly erroneous standard and affirms the trial court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Timmerman’s false statement on the application was material for misconduct disqualification | Timmerman: her entry meant she completed CVT training and was a CVT even if license lapsed; materiality not shown because she would have been hired regardless, only at a lower pay rate | Employer: the misrepresentation was willful, harmed employer (higher pay, more responsibility) and was material because employer chose to hire a CVT and would not have placed her in that role if truthful | Court held misrepresentation was material; Board’s finding otherwise was clearly erroneous and reversed |
| Whether the other misconduct elements were met (reasonable rule, willful violation, harm) | Timmerman: contested the characterization but argued she did not willfully misrepresent licensure | Employer: application rules were reasonable; falsehood was willful and harmed employer/trust | Board already found these elements satisfied; appellate court accepted those findings |
| Proper standard of review for Board’s factual/legal mixed determination | Timmerman: contended trial court erred by overturning Board’s fact findings | Employer: argued Board erred on materiality; trial court properly reversed | Appellate court applied clearly erroneous standard to Board’s mixed determination and found Board’s materiality finding clearly erroneous |
| Whether breach of trust and immediate discharge supports materiality | Timmerman: argued employer tolerance of lapsed license under prior owner and her training made misrepresentation immaterial | Employer: immediate discharge on reveal and assignment of higher duties/pay show materiality | Court relied on discharge, higher pay, greater responsibilities, and breach of trust to find materiality |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrovic v. Department of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562 (establishes standard for reviewing Board misconduct determinations and elements of misconduct)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (administrative-review scope and deference principles)
- Roundtree v. Board of Review, 4 Ill. App. 3d 695 (1972) (false answer to a material question on application can constitute misconduct)
- Price v. Civil Service Board of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 123 Ill. App. 2d 2 (1970) (upholding dismissal for false statement of material fact on application)
- Shah v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 119 Ill. App. 3d 658 (1983) (materiality defined by whether party would rely on the representation)