Universal Security Corporation v. The Department of Employment Security
2015 IL App (1st) 133886
Ill. App. Ct.2015Background
- Hooker, an overnight unarmed security guard at O’Hare, was photographed asleep at his post on Sept. 25, 2012; he admitted he “temporarily dozed off” for about 3–4 minutes after working a prior 10-hour shift at a second job.
- Universal Security’s written policy mandated automatic discharge for sleeping on duty; Hooker knew the rule and its consequences.
- An IDES claims adjudicator denied unemployment benefits for willful misconduct; a referee reversed, finding no deliberate and willful violation.
- The Board of Review affirmed the referee, emphasizing that falling asleep is willful only if the employee purposely naps and noting Hooker’s brief, public doze and lack of prior infractions.
- The circuit court affirmed the Board; the appellate majority affirmed, holding the Board’s decision was not clearly erroneous; a dissent would have denied benefits as willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Hooker’s dozing constituted "deliberate and willful" misconduct under 820 ILCS 405/602(A) | Hooker (plaintiff-appellant) contends his short, inadvertent doze was not deliberate; he lacked a history of sleeping on duty and was exposed in public view | Universal argues Hooker knowingly reported fatigued from a prior 10‑hour shift, violated a reasonable no‑sleep policy, and harmed employer’s security/reputation, so conduct was willful | Board’s finding that conduct was not deliberate and willful was not clearly erroneous; benefits allowed |
| Whether the Board applied correct standard in evaluating intent | Universal: Board should treat reporting tired as culpable because it increased risk and violated employer expectations | Board/Hooker: intent requires conscious disregard; brief public doze and lack of prior warnings indicate no purposeful nap | Court: standard (deliberate means intentional conscious disregard) properly applied; record supports non‑willful finding |
| Applicability of precedent (cases involving sleeping) | Universal: Odie suggests denial where employee knowingly took drowsy medication and had warnings; relies on risk/role here to show willfulness | Hooker: Washington and Wrobel show inadvertent sleep/oversleeping can be non‑willful; facts align more with those cases | Court distinguished Odie and found facts closer to Washington/Wrobel; non‑willful result appropriate |
| Standard of review — whether Board’s mixed fact-law ruling was clearly erroneous | Universal: urges reversal, claiming totality shows willfulness | Defendants: deferential review; Board’s factual findings prima facie correct | Court applied clearly erroneous standard and found no definite and firm conviction of error; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- AFM Messenger Service, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security, 198 Ill. 2d 380 (Ill. 2001) (standard for reviewing misconduct determinations; clearly erroneous review for mixed questions of law and fact)
- Messer & Stilp, Ltd. v. Department of Employment Security, 392 Ill. App. 3d 849 (1st Dist. 2009) (amended definition of "misconduct" rejects equating negligence with willful misconduct)
- Washington v. Board of Review, 211 Ill. App. 3d 663 (1st Dist. 1991) (employee who dozed inadvertently at a meeting not guilty of willful misconduct)
- Odie v. Department of Employment Security, 377 Ill. App. 3d 710 (1st Dist. 2007) (employee who knowingly took drowsy medication, had warnings, and resumed sleeping held to have committed willful misconduct)
- Wrobel v. Department of Employment Security, 344 Ill. App. 3d 533 (1st Dist. 2003) (oversleeping/forgetting alarm is careless but not necessarily willful misconduct)
- Carpetland U.S.A., Inc. v. Illinois Department of Employment Security, 201 Ill. 2d 351 (Ill. 2002) (discusses deference and review standards for agency factual findings)