 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Erickson v. State6/3/2002
David Erickson appeals the Employment Security Department's (Department) decision denying him unemployment benefits based on disqualifying misconduct. An Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the Commissioner of the Department, and the superior court all affirmed the Department's decision. Erickson argues the Commissioner improperly based her findings exclusively on hearsay testimony presented by the Department, thus denying Erickson his statutory and constitutional right to confront witnesses. He then maintains that without the hearsay testimony, the record lacks substantial evidence supporting the Commissioner's decision. Because we conclude that the Commissioner's findings were not based solely on the hearsay evidence and are supported by substantial non-hearsay evidence in the record, we affirm the denial of benefits.
FACTS
David Erickson worked for Seattle Pacific Industries, Inc., from May 26, 1994, until he was discharged on May 2, 2000, for violating the company's sexual harassment policy. In June 1997, he received an employee handbook outlining the company's sexual harassment policy. In January 1999, Erickson completed sexual harassment training provided by his employer. During the training, Erickson expressed his disagreement with the company's policy.
In January 2000, a temporary worker at Seattle Pacific made a claim of sexual harassment against Erickson. When confronted by his employer, Erickson admitted that he regularly engaged in conversations of a sexual nature with the temporary worker. Seattle Pacific responded by giving Erickson a letter reminding him of the company's sexual harassment policy and instructing him to 'cease all such behaviors and conversations {of a sexual nature}, even with those individuals you feel may welcome such.' The letter further stated that if Erickson failed to comply, disciplinary action including termination of employment could result.
In April 2000, a different temporary worker at Seattle Pacific made a sexual harassment complaint against Erickson. Erickson admitted giving the temporary worker his sexually explicit website address, but claimed that she asked him for it after he told her he was 'the only guy in here that's got the brains to have an adult website.' Erickson was discharged for violating the company's sexual harassment policy. He then applied for unemployment compensation benefits.
The Department initially determined he was ineligible for benefits because he was discharged for work-related misconduct. After a hearing, an ALJ affirmed the Department's initial determination, concluding that the Department had met its burden of proving disqualifying misconduct. The Commissioner affirmed the ALJ's decision, adopting her findings of fact and conclusions of law, and entering additional conclusions of law. The superior court affirmed the Commissioner's decision, and this appeal followed.
DISCUSSION
Washington's Administrative Procedure Act (APA) governs judicial review of the Employment Security Department Commissioner's final decision. The Washington APA authorizes us to reverse the Commissioner's decision if it is based on an error of law, not supported by substantial evidence or is arbitrary and capricious. In reviewing the Commissioner's decision, we sit in the same position as the superior court.
Under Washington's Employment Security Act, an employee who is discharged for 'misconduct connected with his or her work' is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. The question whether an employee's behavior constitutes 'misconduct' under the Act is a mixed question of law and fact. Accordingly, 'the factual findings of the agency
Page 1 2 3 Washington Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|