Sondra Irving v. Employment Appeal Board, 883 N.W.2d 179

Background

Sondra Irving, a UIHC medical assistant, was arrested Nov 28, 2013, jailed until Dec 24, then had charges dismissed; she missed scheduled work in early December.
Irving’s mother phoned UIHC daily to report absences; supervisors told Irving she had been placed on leave, but after release Irving was told she was no longer employed and was rejected when she reapplied.
UIHC and the agency concluded Irving voluntarily quit (three consecutive no-call/no-show days) or committed misconduct (excessive unexcused absenteeism); UI Work Development denied unemployment benefits.
The EAB affirmed; district court affirmed EAB. On further appeal, the EAB raised a new “spill‑over” theory that a final misconduct disqualification from a concurrent part‑time job bars benefits from other employers.
The Iowa Supreme Court (majority) reversed: it rejected the spill‑over theory, held incarceration (with dismissed charges and evidence of efforts to notify) did not show volitional misconduct or a voluntary quit, and found insufficient substantial evidence to disqualify Irving.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Irving)	Defendant / EAB Argument	Held
Spill‑over: Does a final misconduct disqualification from one concurrent job disqualify benefits from another job?	A misconduct finding for a part‑time job should not bar benefits from unrelated full‑time employment.	EAB: statute disqualifies for misconduct generally; thus disqualification applies to all employers ("spill‑over").	Rejected. Misconduct disqualification is employer‑specific unless statute expressly applies to all employers (gross misconduct provision does that).
Misconduct: Do absences caused by incarceration constitute disqualifying misconduct?	Her incarceration was involuntary, charges were dismissed, she sought to notify employer — no volition or unexcused absences.	EAB: extended absence (≈16 days) while jailed and failure to follow leave procedures shows excessive unexcused absenteeism and misconduct.	Reversed. Employer failed to prove unexcused, volitional misconduct under the demanding Boynton standard; incarceration (with dismissal and notification efforts) falls within "other reasonable grounds."
Voluntary quit: Is incarceration a per se voluntary quit under the agency rule?	Incarceration is non‑volitional and cannot as a matter of law be a voluntary quit.	EAB: agency rule deems incarceration a voluntary quit; practical needs justify presumption to avoid requiring employers to litigate criminal guilt.	Reversed. Voluntary quit requires volition at inception; incarceration alone is not a constructive voluntary quit; the agency rule does not create an irrebuttable presumption of voluntariness.
Burden / deference: Should the court defer to EAB legal interpretations?	(Implicit) EAB’s rulings should be reviewed but legal questions are for the court.	EAB: its longstanding rules and interpretations deserve weight.	The court declined Renda deference; statutory terms are legal questions for the court and agency interpretations are not controlling absent clear delegation.

Key Cases Cited

Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 296 N.W. 636 (Wis. 1941) (formative, demanding standard for "misconduct" disqualifying unemployment benefits)
Cosper v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 321 N.W.2d 6 (Iowa 1982) (excessive absenteeism is not automatically misconduct; must be unexcused)
Higgins v. Iowa Dep’t of Job Serv., 350 N.W.2d 187 (Iowa 1984) (habitual, unexcused tardiness/absences can constitute disqualifying misconduct)
Jenkins v. American Express Fin. Corp., 721 N.W.2d 286 (Minn. 2006) (incarceration/conviction may disqualify in some fact patterns; outcome is fact‑specific)
Richards v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 480 A.2d 1338 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1984) (misconduct discharge from a part‑time job does not disqualify benefits from full‑time employment)
Glende v. Comm’r of Econ. Sec., 345 N.W.2d 283 (Minn. Ct. App. 1984) (rejecting "spill‑over" disqualification from one job to another)