 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wernke v. State3/17/1999
w, the agency's actions are fully reviewable, however. Rasmussen v. South Dakota Dept. of Labor, 510 NW2d 659, 657 (SD 1993). Whether an individual has been discharged from employment for misconduct that disqualifies him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is a question of law, and is, therefore, fully reviewable by this Court. Id.
ANALYSIS AND DECISION
[ ] Claimant is not arguing on appeal that he was wrongfully terminated from employment. He argues that the circuit court erred as a matter of law in finding work-related misconduct and that Employer failed to meet its burden in that respect. This Court has distinguished between grounds for discharge of an employee and grounds for denial of unemployment benefits. Appeal of White, 339 NW2d 306 (SD 1983).
[ ] The reasons given by Employer for terminating Claimant's employment are not clear. Initially, upon learning of the conduct described above in the findings of fact, Claimant's supervisor, Abbie Rathbun, (Rathbun) gave him notice of her intent to terminate his employment. Rathbun stated as a reason for her intention to terminate, that the action to terminate was:
"intended for just cause related to your violation of the following administrative rules:
"55:01:12:05 (4) The employee has violated any department, division, bureau, or institution regulation, policy, or order or failed to obey any oral or written directions given by a supervisor or other person in authority;
"55:01:12:05 (23) The employee has discriminated against another person in the course of employment or has taken wrongful actions against another person which affect the vicarious or imputed responsibility of the state or any other state employee."
[ ] At the hearing before the ALJ, Rathbun testified in response to a question regarding the reason for Claimant's termination, that his discharge was for a violation of the above state administrative rules.
[ ] Rathbun's letter of intent to terminate was more specific about the rationale behind Claimant's discharge. Passages in that letter referred to Employer's policy that " he Department expects all employees of the Department to maintain a professional relationship with clients of the Department at all times" and that "Exploitation of any client of the Department of Social Services is prohibited and shall be grounds for disciplinary action." (emphasis added).
[ ] Finally, with regard to the reason for Claimant's termination, at the hearing before the ALJ, it was learned that it is the policy of Employer that, "Socializing with a client on a personal basis is not recommended and should be avoided." (emphasis added). There was no evidence or finding that this type of a violation constituted grounds for automatic dismissal.
[ ] Exploitation is defined as " aking unjust advantage of another for one's own advantage or benefit." Black's Law Dictionary, Fifth ed., 1979. At most, the evidence showed Claimant may have attempted to exploit Client. There is no evidence or finding, however, that Claimant did, in fact, take "unjust advantage" of Petra to his own advantage or benefit.
[ ] Despite the variously stated reasons for termination of Claimant's employment, the ALJ found only that, " mployer terminated Claimant for attempting to socialize with a client. It is important to note that the finding of fact was only that Claimant was "attempting" to socialize with a client. It is also important to note that Employer's policy with regard to socializing with a client on a personal basis was only a warning. It was not an express prohibition on socializing with a client.
[ ] Being mindful of th
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.
|
|