Robles v. Employment Development Department
144 Cal. Rptr. 3d 36
Cal. Ct. App.2012Background
- Robles worked as a service technician for Liquid Environmental Solutions for four years and was terminated January 5, 2010.
- EDD denied unemployment benefits; employer did not oppose or participate at hearings.
- ALJ found Robles discharged for misconduct; Board adopted that stance.
- The court determines there was no misconduct under §1256 and employer failed to overcome the §1256 presumption.
- The remedy is to award Robles benefits with interest and reverse the lower court's denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Robles disqualified for misconduct under §1256? | Robles: no misconduct; acted with good faith. | Robles breached a shoe-allowance policy and thus committed misconduct. | No; Robles’ conduct was a good-faith error, not misconduct. |
| Did employer overcome the §1256 presumption given lack of notice under §1327? | Employer failed to provide required §1327 notice to overcome the presumption. | Employer contends misconduct; not adequately proven. | Employer failed to overcome the presumption; Robles not disqualified. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 35 Cal.3d 671 (Cal. 1984) (fault-focused, misconduct requires culpable intent; good faith errors possible)
- Rowe v. Hansen, 41 Cal.App.3d 512 (Cal. App. 3d 1974) (circumstantial evidence required to show culpable intent)
- Davis v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 43 Cal.App.3d 71 (Cal. App. 1974) (unambiguous refusal alone not misconduct; requires intent)
- Sanchez v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 36 Cal.3d 575 (Cal. 1984) (liberal construction to reduce unemployment hardship; focus on intent)
- Aguilar v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 223 Cal.App.3d 239 (Cal. App. 1990) (evidence and misdeeds tied to employer rules and expectations)
- Tripp v. Swoap, 17 Cal.3d 671 (Cal. 1976) (precedent on unemployment eligibility and burden of proof)