Kwasnik v. Unemployment Insurance Commission

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 27, 2005
• Docket: CUMap-04-20
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

-- . . ~

. .. , . . ... . :. .. .- . .-. . .- ,.. . STATE OF MAINE : -, > ,- ~. . 4 SUPERIOR COURT ... CLTMBERLAND, ss. CIVIL ACTION

; .,"" ,.,+ , ,'? >.' - .-.: I -- :<; ,? I; ,- --,

'Lib,?, * ! -

. * ,-j,,..D [.. pai? h,a +, ';: , . . - y . ~ ~ + , , . * ,,-*,.,, gi;;.": ,

'''$;y'* MAREK A. KWASNIK, *

Petitioner * v. ORDER * UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE * COMMISSION, * ..* -=&- * Respondent * *

T h s case comes before the Court on Marek Kwasnik's Motion to Strike the

Unemployment Insurance Commission's Brief and Rule 80C appeal from the

Commission's determination that Petitioner was discharged by Barber Foods for

misconduct.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Marek Kwasnik (Petitioner)was employed at Barber Foods, Inc. as a

senior techcian, from September 4,2002, until November 1,2002. He was

discharged following numerous complaints about his abrasive and

confrontational behavior towards other employees. In 2003, following

subsequent employment in Massachusetts, Petitioner began receiving

unemployment benefits. Shortly thereafter, Barber Foods' experience rating

record was charged according to the interstate claims process. Barber Foods

appealed t h s determination to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DHA).

On January 14,2004, a DHA hearing officer addressed the narrow issue of

whether Barber Foods should be charged for Petitioner's benefits. He ultimately determined that Barber Foods should not be charged because Petitioner had been

discharged for misconduct. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1043(23). Petitioner appealed this

decision. On April 9,2004, the Unemployment Insurance Commission (the

Commission) affirmed and adopted the DHA decision. On May 10,2004,

Petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to Maine Civil Rule 80C.

DISCUSSION

Preliminarily, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(g),in an appeal of final agency

action, the respondent has 30 days after the service of the petitioner's brief to file

a brief. Thus, Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Commissionfsbrief is denied.

In reviewing a decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance

Commission, the Court must determine whether the record contains competent

evidence to support the findings of the Commission. Spear v. Maine

Unemployment Ins. Corn., 505 A.2d 82,84 (Me. 1986). The Court will affirm the

Commission's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the whole

record. Id.; 5 M.R.S.A. 9 11007(4)(C)(5)(1979).

The first issue in h s case is whether Petitioner was discharged from Barber

Foods for engaging in misconduct. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1043(23)(Supp. 2004).

Misconduct is defined, in relevant part, as "a culpable breach of the employee's

duties or obligations to the employer or a pattern of irresponsible behavior,

which in either case manifests a disregard for a material interest of the employer.

Id. The statute further provides that "an unreasonable violation of rules that are

reasonably imposed and communicated and equitably enforced manifests a

disregard for a material interest of the employer. ld. at 5 1043(A)(2).

Here, the records shows that Petitioner's supervisor received eight complaints about Petitioner's abrasive and confrontational demeanor during his

short employment with Barber Foods. (Record 59,61-62). On numerous

occasions, the supervisor discussed Petitioner's abrasive demeanor and provided

h m with several t e c h q u e s to assist in modifying lus method of communication.

Even after a final warning was issued, Petitioner still &d not modify his

behavior. There is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the

Commission's finding that Petitioner engaged in a pattern of irresponsible

behavior e h b i t e d by the numerous complaints of lus abrasive and

confrontational demeanor.

The second issue in tlus case is whether h s case is moot. Petitioner's

collection of unemployment benefits was unaffected by the misconduct

determination.' His only argument is that a finding of misconduct taints h s

reputation and thus amounts to defamation. However, the Employment

Security Law provides that, inter alia, a finding of misconduct is confidential and

has no consequence beyond the unemployment context. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1194(12).

Therefore, because Petitioner's collection of benefits was unaffected by the

determination, and a findmg of misconduct does not taint his reputation, there is

no real controversy for tlus Court to deade.

The decision of the Unemployment Insurance C

DATE: @~%-%?,wQ~

Petitioner conceded at oral argument that he has collected the entire amount of unemployment benefits awarded to h m . Date Filed 05 - LO -2004 Cumberland County 80C Appeal Action

MAREK A. KWASNIK STATE OF MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMISSION; DIVISION OF ADMINSTRATIVE HEARINGS OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; B & ~ - ~ O O ~ s , - & ~ ~ - ; ~ i s r n i s s- e d STEYEN-BBBBEB;-GBEGOBX-BUBG~S~-~~~-FQQB~-~PTC~D~S. MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 2nd SHIFT VS.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorne PRO SE Elizabeth J. ?$man, AAG Marek A. Kwasnik Office of the Attorney General 99 Swett Road 6 State House Station Windham, ME 04062 Augusta, ME 04333-0006 207-626-8800

Date of t Entry