Petrovic v. Department of Employment Security, 2016 IL 118562

Petrovic worked for American Airlines since 1988 and on Jan 1, 2012 requested a bottle of champagne and asked whether a passenger could be upgraded; the passenger was later upgraded to first class.
American terminated Petrovic on Jan 24, 2012 citing violations of internal rules (rule Nos. 16 and 34) for misrepresentation/dishonesty; its administrative protest instead referenced a policy that only authorized employees may issue upgrades and that employees must remain in work areas.
Petrovic applied for unemployment benefits; a Department referee denied benefits for misconduct, the Board affirmed (incorporating the referee), and the circuit court reversed, finding no proof of an express rule violation.
The appellate court reversed the circuit court and reinstated the Board’s denial; Petrovic appealed to the Illinois Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court considered (1) whether the State defendants had standing to appeal and (2) whether Petrovic’s conduct constituted "misconduct" under 820 ILCS 405/602(A).
The Supreme Court reversed the appellate court and affirmed the circuit court: American failed to prove a deliberate violation of a reasonable rule or policy; the commonsense exception to proving a rule applies only where the conduct is otherwise illegal or a prima facie intentional tort.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Standing to appeal by Department	State defendants lacked Speck standing to appeal because they act quasi-judicially	Department has managerial/admin duties to preserve the fund and thus may appeal	Department had standing; Braun and fund-preservation duties distinguish Speck
Whether Petrovic committed "misconduct" under §602(A)	Petrovic lacked notice of any rule forbidding her conduct; no express rule was proved	Employer argued employee sought upgrade without authorization and violated a known policy communicated via PC training	Employer failed to prove a deliberate, willful violation of a reasonable rule; benefits allowed
Burden of proof for misconduct disqualification	(implied) Petrovic not required to disprove misconduct	Employer must prove disqualifying misconduct	Employer bears burden to prove misconduct; court adheres to established precedent
Commonsense exception (inference of rule)	Commonsense inference cannot replace statutory requirement absent illegal/tortious conduct	Board applied commonsense exception to infer misconduct without proving a rule	Commonsense exception limited: applies only where conduct is criminal or a prima facie intentional tort; not applicable here

Speck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 89 Ill. 2d 482 (Ill. 1982) (administrative body with only adjudicatory functions lacks standing to appeal)
Braun v. Retirement Board of the Firemen's Annuity & Benefit Fund, 108 Ill. 2d 119 (Ill. 1985) (agency with managerial duties may appeal to protect fund)
AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (Ill. 2001) (standard for administrative review; clearly erroneous standard explanation)
United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (U.S. 1948) (definition of "clearly erroneous" standard)
Meeks v. Department of Employment Security, 208 Ill. App. 3d 579 (Ill. App. 1991) (commonsense inference applied in criminal conduct cases)
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 313 Ill. App. 3d 645 (Ill. App. 2000) (discussing when unwritten rules or common knowledge can be sufficient)
Czajka v. Department of Employment Security, 387 Ill. App. 3d 168 (Ill. App. 2008) (examples of commonsense exception application)