 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wernke v. State3/17/1999
South Dakota Supreme Court Appeal from the Sixth Judicial Circuit, Hughes County, SD Hon. James W. Anderson, Judge
Reversed
Considered on Briefs Jan 13, 1999; Opinion Filed Mar 17, 1999
[ ] David Wernke (Claimant) appeals from a judgment of the trial court, which affirmed the decision of the Department of Labor to deny him unemployment compensation benefits. We reverse.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
[ ] The findings of fact of the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) adequately set forth the facts and are listed verbatim below:
1. Claimant worked for Employer as a quality control specialist from January 28, 1988, to September 12, 1997.
2. Employer provides assistance to people to help weatherize their homes. Employer has non-profit corporations do the weatherizing. Claimant's job was to monitor the records of the non-profit corporations.
3. People who are receiving assistance from Employer are called clients.
4. Claimant knew and understood that he was not to socialize with clients. Clients of the Employer tend to be vulnerable people and socializing can create liability problems for Employer.
5. On or about August 5, 1997, Claimant was inspecting a house that had been designated for the weatherization program. The client's name was Petra Hentschell (Petra). Her home was located in Ashton, South Dakota.
6. Claimant normally did not visit houses, rather, he visited the non-profit corporations.
7. Claimant was staying at the Super 8 Motel in Aberdeen that evening.
8. At approximately 7:00 p.m., Claimant was at a bar in Ashton, South Dakota. He saw Petra's son in the bar and asked him if his mother was at home. Her son did not know.
9. Claimant then drove to Petra's house and opened the door to see if anybody was at home. It appeared that nobody was home.
10. Claimant left a note on Petra's door that stated, "Dave Wernke-Housing Inspector-Petra, Super 8 Motel Room 150, 2405 SE 6th, 229-5005, Please call 280-3166 or above-I would like to ask you something."
11. Later that evening, Petra called Claimant and he asked her to go have a drink with him. She declined his offer. Claimant then said that he would be back in Ashton on August 6, 1997, (the next night) and asked Petra if she wanted to have a drink that night. Again, Petra declined his offer.
12. Petra reported Claimant's behavior to Employer.
13. Employer terminated Claimant for attempting to socialize with a client.
14. Claimant filed a new claim for unemployment insurance benefits on October 9, 1997, with an effective date of September 28, 1997.
15. Claimant timely appealed a determination of the South Dakota Unemployment Insurance Division (SDUID) that concluded he was discharged for work-connected misconduct and the Employer is a reimbursing employer and is subject to charge for benefits when paid to Claimant. (emphasis added.)
[ ] The circuit court, by letter decision, affirmed the ALJ's decision. Claimant raises several issues on appeal, relating to alleged errors regarding hearsay evidence admitted over his objections. Because we reverse on other grounds, those issues need not be addressed.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
[ ] The standard of review from decisions of administrative agencies is governed by SDCL 1-26-37, which provides that the Supreme Court shall "give the same deference to the findings of fact, Conclusions of law and final judgment of the circuit court as it does other appeals from the circuit court." When the issue is a question of la
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 South Dakota Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|