Petrovic v. The Department of Employment Security
19 N.E.3d 170
Ill. App. Ct.2014Background
- Zlata Petrovic, a long‑time American Airlines tower planner, was discharged in January 2012 after leaving her work area to obtain a bottle of champagne and an unauthorized first‑class upgrade for a "friend of a friend."
- American reported a potential $7,143.50 revenue discrepancy and cited company policy that only authorized employees may issue upgrades and employees must remain in their work area unless approved.
- The Department of Employment Security (Department) denied Petrovic unemployment benefits for misconduct; an administrative law judge and the Board of Review affirmed the denial.
- Petrovic sought administrative review in Cook County circuit court, which reversed the Board, finding insufficient competent evidence that Petrovic personally gave the champagne or moved the passenger.
- The Department, the Director, and the Board appealed the circuit court’s reversal; Petrovic argued those state defendants lacked standing because American did not participate in the appeal.
- The appellate court reviewed the Board’s factual and legal determinations under the clearly erroneous standard and considered whether Petrovic’s conduct satisfied section 602(A) misconduct elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing to appeal circuit‑court reversal | State defendants lack standing to appeal because the employer (American) did not appeal; agency was a neutral adjudicator at admin level | Department, Director, and Board have statutory role and managerial responsibility to protect the unemployment fund and may prosecute appeals | State defendants have standing; statute and agency responsibilities permit appeal |
| Disqualification for misconduct under 820 ILCS 405/602(A) | Petrovic lacked authority and contends she did not personally give champagne or move the passenger and was unaware she violated policy | Petrovic willfully left her post, solicited an unauthorized upgrade and champagne, causing potential $7,100 loss and safety/load concerns; she had received PC‑based training | Board’s finding of misconduct (willful violation of reasonable policy causing employer harm) was not clearly erroneous; disqualification upheld |
Key Cases Cited
- Speck v. Zoning Board of Appeals, 89 Ill. 2d 482 (1982) (agency acting adjudicatively lacks authority to prosecute appeals as advocate)
- Braun v. Retirement Board of the Firemen’s Annuity & Benefit Fund, 108 Ill. 2d 119 (1985) (distinguishes adjudicatory boards from agencies with managerial responsibilities)
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (2001) (standards for mixed questions of law and fact and clearly erroneous review)
- Comprehensive Community Solutions, Inc. v. Rockford School District No. 205, 216 Ill. 2d 455 (2005) (clarifies review standards for mixed questions)
- Manning v. Department of Employment Security, 365 Ill. App. 3d 553 (2006) (misconduct defined and employer harm considered as potential, not just actual)
- Livingston v. Department of Employment Security, 375 Ill. App. 3d 710 (2007) (willful conduct and awareness/ conscious disregard of employer rules)
- Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security, 299 Ill. App. 3d 446 (1998) (reasonable rules may be inferred by commonsense realization of conduct harming employer)
- United States v. United States Gypsum Co., 333 U.S. 364 (1948) (articulates standard for clearly erroneous review)