Stauffer v. Department of Workforce Services
2014 UT App 63
| Utah Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Stauffer challenges the Board's decision denying unemployment benefits by labeling him an independent contractor.
- Employer Salt Lake Private Detectives/Statewide Process Servers engaged Stauffer as a process server starting May 2009, with other clients inferred over time.
- In summer 2012 Employer terminated the relationship; Stauffer filed for unemployment benefits in August 2012.
- Auditor, hearings officer, and ALJ initially found Stauffer was not an independent contractor; the Board reversed and held he was independent contractor.
- Stauffer contends the Board abused discretion by reweighing evidence and by credibility determinations; argues there is not substantial evidence supporting independence.
- Board concluded Stauffer operated his own business, provided services for others, used his own resources, and was not subject to employer-directed control.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| May the Board reweigh evidence and make credibility determinations? | Stauffer asserts Board exceeded discretion by reweighing and judging credibility. | Board may reweigh evidence and make credibility findings under agency rules. | Yes; Board may reweigh and assess credibility. |
| Are the Board's findings substantial evidence of independent contractor status? | Stauffer argues findings lack substantial evidence to prove independence from control. | Board's findings, viewed with the whole record, support independence. | Findings supported by substantial evidence; Stauffer is an independent contractor. |
| Do minor errors in findings render the Board's decision defective? | Two findings about invoices and other services are not supported by substantial evidence. | Two minor errors are harmless and do not undermine the decision. | Harmless error; does not undermine the result. |
Key Cases Cited
- Drake v. Industrial Comm'n, 939 P.2d 177 (Utah 1997) (appellate standard of review for agency findings not controlling agency credibility)
- Albertsons, Inc. v. Department of Emp't Sec., 854 P.2d 570 (Utah Ct.App.1993) (court does not judge witness credibility in agency context)
- United States Steel Corp. v. Industrial Comm'n, 607 P.2d 807 (Utah 1980) (agency may make credibility determinations and rely on its findings)
- Uintah Cnty. v. Department of Workforce Servs., 2014 UT App 44, 320 P.3d 1103 (Utah App.2014) (Board may weigh evidence and make credibility determinations contrary to ALJ)
- Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review of the Indus. Comm'n, 776 P.2d 63 (Utah Ct.App.1989) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing findings of fact)
- VanLeeuwen v. Industrial Comm'n, 901 P.2d 281 (Utah Ct.App.1995) (substantial evidence standard and scope of review)
- Acosta v. Labor Comm'n, 44 P.3d 819 (Utah App.2002) (definition of substantial evidence in agency review)