Peterson Vet, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security
2017 IL App (3d) 150676
| Ill. App. Ct. | 2017Background
- Timmerman worked as a veterinary technician for Peterson Vet from July 2013 to February 10, 2014; she listed "CVT" on her new-employer application though her certified veterinary technician license had expired Jan. 31, 2013.
- Employer paid her a higher CVT rate, assigned greater responsibilities (e.g., performing CPR), and required truthful completion of new applications after purchasing the clinic.
- Employer discovered the lapsed license in Feb. 2014, confronted Timmerman, and discharged her for having allowed the CVT license to lapse and for misrepresenting her status.
- A Department claims adjudicator and a referee found misconduct and denied unemployment benefits; the Department Board of Review reversed, finding the misstatement not material to hiring and awarded benefits.
- Employer sought judicial review; the Tazewell County circuit court reversed the Board and denied benefits; Timmerman appealed to the Appellate Court (Third District), which affirmed the circuit court and set aside the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Timmerman) | Defendant's Argument (Peterson Vet) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a false statement on an employment application was "material" for misconduct disqualification under the Unemployment Insurance Act | Timmerman: she listed educational/certification credentials (a college certificate and passing boards) and meant CVT as a role, not a currently licensed CVT; the record shows employer would have hired her anyway (perhaps at lower pay) so the fact was not material | Employer: the false statement was willful, injured employer interests (higher pay, greater duties, trust), and was material because employer would not have hired her as a CVT had it known the license lapsed | Held: The Board’s finding of non-materiality was clearly erroneous; false statement was material and misconduct disqualified Timmerman from benefits |
| Standard of review for Board misconduct finding | Timmerman: Board’s factual findings should be upheld absent clear error | Employer: Board’s materiality determination was wrong and should be overturned | Held: Appellate court applied clearly erroneous standard and concluded Board erred on materiality |
| Whether the employer’s requirements and harm element of misconduct were satisfied | Timmerman: employer didn’t need a licensed CVT by law; any misstatement related only to pay, not hiring | Employer: employer had chosen to require a CVT, paid more and relied on the credential; trust was breached and harm occurred | Held: Employer satisfied the reasonable-rule and harm elements; only materiality was disputed and resolved for employer |
| Proper scope of materiality inquiry (what the Board must consider) | Timmerman: Board limited inquiry properly to whether employer would have hired her without the credential | Employer: Board should consider whether employer would have hired her had it known she lied | Held: Court held Board should consider not only whether employer would have hired an uncertified worker but also whether the fact of the false representation itself would have affected hiring; here it did |
Key Cases Cited
- Petrovic v. Department of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562 (clarifies standard for Board misconduct determinations and review)
- Roundtree v. Board of Review, 4 Ill. App. 3d 695 (false answers to material application questions can constitute misconduct)
- Abbott Industries, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 2011 IL App (2d) 100610 (discusses mixed question of fact and law and clearly erroneous review for misconduct)
- Price v. Civil Service Board of the Metropolitan Sanitary District of Greater Chicago, 123 Ill. App. 2d 2 (upholds dismissal for false statement of material fact on application)
- Shah v. Chicago Title & Trust Co., 119 Ill. App. 3d 658 (misrepresentation is material if it relates to matters upon which employer reasonably relies)