Virginia Employment Commission v. Community Alternatives, Inc.
57 Va. App. 700
| Va. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Collier, employed by Community Alternatives, Inc. since August 2007, worked under a drug-free workplace policy with random drug screening.
- Collier tested positive for marijuana in September 2008; sample processed by Quest Diagnostics with a DHHS-certified lab; lab report included testing details and certifying scientist.
- Employer terminated Collier for policy violation; Collier sought unemployment benefits from the Virginia Employment Commission (VEC), which initially awarded benefits.
- Employer challenged the award; VEC appeals examiner sought a chain-of-custody affirmation; employer faxed a chain-of-custody document after the evidentiary hearing; Collier did not contest the document.
- On remand, a special examiner reversed, finding the test insufficient as a matter of law due to lack of a separate chain-of-custody affirmation, and the VEC did not treat the chain-of-custody form as an exhibit.
- Circuit court remanded to clarify whether the drug test could be deemed reliable or simply insufficient as a matter of law; VEC maintained a chain-of-custody-document requirement; circuit court ultimately reversed the VEC decision, and the Virginia Court of Appeals affirmed the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does Code § 60.2-618(2)(b)(1) require a separate chain-of-custody affirmation to prove misconduct? | Collier | VEC | No mandatory separate chain of custody is required for prima facie misconduct. |
| Can a positive drug test itself establish a prima facie case without a separate chain-of-custody document? | Collier | VEC | Yes, a positive test may constitute prima facie misconduct if it meets statutory standards. |
| What is the proper standard of review for statutory construction in this context? | Collier | VEC | De novo review; court must interpret the statute textually rather than defer to agency interpretations for questions of law. |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia Emp't Comm'n v. Trent, 55 Va. App. 560 (2010) (unemployment benefits awarded only to those unemployed without fault)
- Israel v. Va. Emp't Comm'n, 7 Va. App. 169 (1988) (purpose of benefits and misconduct standards)
- Meador v. Va. Birth-Related Neurological Injury Comp. Program, 44 Va. App. 149 (2004) (textual construction guiding statutory interpretation)
- Central Va. Obstetrics & Gynecology Assocs., P.C. v. Whitfield, 42 Va. App. 264 (2004) (literal meaning of statutory terms; avoid absurd results)
- Kane v. Szymczak, 41 Va. App. 365 (2003) (words given common, ordinary meaning; interpret statutes carefully)
- Citland, Ltd. v. Commonwealth ex rel. Kilgore, 45 Va. App. 268 (2005) (separation of powers; judiciary determines law)
- Finnerty v. Thornton Hall, Inc., 42 Va. App. 628 (2004) (statutory interpretation de novo in unemployment context)
- Snyder v. Va. Emp't Comm'n, 23 Va. App. 484 (1996) (evidence standards in adjudicating unemployment claims)
- Baker v. Babcock & Wilcox Co., 11 Va. App. 419 (1990) (evidentiary standards and chain of custody considerations)
- Barkley v. Peninsula Transp. Dist. Comm'n, 11 Va. App. 317 (1990) (drug testing standards in employment misconduct cases)
- Jones v. Ford Motor Co., 263 Va. 237 (2002) (chain of custody and admissibility in evidence context)