State Of Washington, Department Of Employment Security, App v. Jose E. Cuesta, Resp
75405-0
| Wash. Ct. App. | Sep 25, 2017Background
- Jose Cuesta worked as a Boeing airplane assembly/installation inspector from 2007 to 2015; his job required physically inspecting fabricated aircraft parts before approval and installation.
- On March 25, 2015, while filling in at a different area, Cuesta twice marked parts as inspected and approved when he had not physically inspected them; one approval certified holes that had not yet been drilled.
- Boeing investigated, disassembled a partially assembled aircraft to validate other parts, and discharged Cuesta for approving work without performing inspections in violation of company rules.
- Cuesta applied for unemployment benefits; the Department initially approved benefits, Boeing appealed, and an ALJ held Cuesta was discharged for misconduct and disqualified him from benefits.
- The Department Commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings and affirmed disqualification under RCW 50.04.294(1)(d); the superior court reversed; the Court of Appeals reversed the superior court and affirmed the Commissioner.
Issues
| Issue | Cuesta's Argument | Boeing/Department's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an interpreter was required at the administrative hearing | Cuesta: preferred language Spanish; should have been provided an interpreter | Dept.: notice in English/Spanish; Cuesta did not request interpreter and conducted hearing in English | Court: No abuse of discretion; Cuesta did not indicate inability to proceed in English |
| Whether transcript technical issues require remand | Cuesta: inaudible portions; possible missing substantive content | Dept.: missing words did not affect findings; Cuesta did not assign error to facts | Court: No remand; record sufficient and factual findings unchallenged |
| Whether Cuesta’s conduct qualifies as statutory misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(1)(d) | Cuesta: actions were isolated, inadvertent, or due to being busy/outside usual area (ordinary negligence or incapacity) | Dept.: failing to inspect critical aircraft parts was carelessness/negligence of sufficient degree to show substantial disregard of employer’s interest | Court: Cuesta’s conduct constituted misconduct under (1)(d); unchallenged facts show serious, non-accidental failures |
| Whether conduct also constitutes per se misconduct under RCW 50.04.294(2)(f) (violation of reasonable company rule) | Cuesta: not argued successfully; emphasized lack of intent and isolateness | Dept.: Boeing had a reasonable rule prohibiting signing off without inspection; Cuesta knew the rule and violated it | Court: Affirmed per se misconduct under (2)(f); rule reasonable and known to Cuesta |
Key Cases Cited
- Tapper v. Employment Security Department, 122 Wn.2d 397 (1993) (disqualification focuses on employee fault; discharge and misconduct are distinct inquiries)
- Kirby v. Employment Security Department, 185 Wn. App. 706 (2014) (definition and application of statutory misconduct under Title 50)
- Gonzales-Morales, 138 Wn.2d 374 (1999) (right to court-appointed interpreter for non-English speakers; appointment not required if lack of fluency is not apparent)
- Michaelson v. Employment Security Department, 187 Wn. App. 293 (2015) (multiple isolated accidents did not necessarily constitute misconduct where record showed generally good performance)