Rigoli v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 151 Idaho 707

Rigoli was discharged from Wal-Mart on Sept. 17, 2009 for allegedly using foul language and leaving his assigned shift early.
The Sept. 15, 2009 incident involved an assistant manager pressuring Rigoli to improve performance, which led to Rigoli uttering vulgar terms in the back room.
Rigoli told a district manager about the incident and later met with the store manager as directed; soon after, he was discharged for abandoning his job and using foul language.
The Department of Labor initially found him eligible, but Wal‑Mart appealed; an October 2009 telephonic hearing was held with Rigoli and Laramie testifying.
The Industrial Commission affirmed the hearing officer, concluding Rigoli’s conduct fell below the employer’s reasonable standard of behavior and discharged him for misconduct; Rigoli timely appealed.
The Court reviews for substantial and competent evidence and applies a two‑pronged test to determine employment‑related misconduct; Pimley v. Best Values, Inc. is a key precedent.”],

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Rigoli discharged for employment misconduct under Idaho law?	Rigoli argues the burden is on Wal‑Mart and evidence does not prove misconduct.	Wal‑Mart contends the evidence shows misconduct by discharging for vulgar language.	Yes; substantial and competent evidence supports misconduct finding.
Did the presence of other employees during the language used affect the misconduct finding?	Rigoli contends lack of corroborating witnesses undermines credibility.	Commission credited Laramie and found presence of others plausible, supporting misconduct.	Yes; Commission properly found misconduct given presence of others and the context.
Was the standard of behavior objectively reasonable and properly applied?	Rigoli argues the incident was a single outburst not meeting misconduct.	Wal‑Mart’s standard of no vulgarity is reasonable in a retail environment.	Yes; vulgar language in presence of others constitutes misconduct under Pimley.

Pimley v. Best Values, Inc., 132 Idaho 432 (1999) (two‑pronged test; vulgarity in front of coworkers violates standard of behavior)
Ginther v. Boise Cascade Corp., 150 Idaho 143 (2010) (substantial evidence standard; credibility weight limits on review)
Desilet v. Glass Doctor, 142 Idaho 655 (2006) (employer’s standard of behavior must be objectively reasonable)
Adams v. Aspen Water, Inc., 150 Idaho 408 (2011) (burden of proving misconduct rests with employer)
Mussman v. Kootenai Cnty., 150 Idaho 68 (2010) (misconduct related to employment; standards of behavior)
Buckham v. Idaho Elk's Rehab. Hosp., 141 Idaho 338 (2005) (free review of Commission findings; substantial evidence standard)