Record v. Workforce Appeals Board, Department of Workforce Services
2011 UT App 340
| Utah Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Claimants records at Zions Bank showed increased concern about their close conduct and perceived relationship; HR directed Tanner to manage perceptions and keep professional distance.
- September 2009 meetings: HR VP instructed Tanner to stay away from Record and to maintain professional boundaries; Record advised to keep interactions work-related and not behind closed doors.
- Despite these directives, reports continued that Claimants spent time together behind closed doors and the employer tried further corrective steps, including relocation and counseling.
- November 2009 meetings: supervisors reiterated expectations; Warned that repeated issues could lead to termination; both Claimants disputed portions of those meetings.
- February 19, 2010 incident: coworker observed Claimants in a dark file room corner with clothes partially off; supervisor statements corroborated by EX VP and HR VP viewing the room with lights on.
- February 22, 2010: Employer terminated both Claimants for gross misconduct and creating a hostile work environment; unemployment benefits denied based on just-cause termination.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether photographs could be admitted as posthearing evidence | Record and Tanner: photographs should be admitted. | Board properly refused; evidence not extraordinary and was reasonably available. | Photographs reasonably available; not admitted; Board correct. |
| Whether the board's decision was supported by substantial evidence | Coworker’s account unreliable due to obstructed view; photographs would rebut. | Evidence supports just-cause termination; credibility lies with ALJ findings. | Substantial evidence supports just-cause termination. |
| Whether the Board properly applied law to findings | Disputed credibility of coworker; photographs could alter determinations. | Board’s application reasonable and within bounds; credibility assessment valid. | Board’s legal application reasonable; no reversal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ekshteyn v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2002 UT App 74 (Utah App.) (moderate deference to agency; specialized knowledge not required)
- EAGALA, Inc. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2007 UT App 43 (Utah App.) (substantial evidence standard; reasonableness of Board’s application of law)
- Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (elementary fairness in unemployment adjudications; right to rebut adverse evidence)
- Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 2011 UT App 68 (Utah App.) (mixed question of law and fact; employer bears burden to prove just cause)
- Johnson v. Department of Emp't Sec., 782 P.2d 965 (Utah Ct. App. 1989) (standard for reviewing unemployment decisions; credibility evaluation)