Rith v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n

• Court: Superior Court of Maine
• Decided: October 2, 2013
• Docket: CUMap-13-08
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

STATE OF MAINE SUPERIOR COURT CUMBERLAND, ss CIVIL ACTION DOCKET NO. AP-13·:D8 1 .---!! .\}J- rl._.......- · ..._ · ·J\1 '.··, - (OJ9r /:. '' 1 ~( ~' Oo<.'-.- ... . - /

CHINHAK RITH,

Plaintiff,

v. MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, aunlli.IIMB ggf §2 ~613 Defendant ~VE§ Before the court is plaintiff Chinhak Rith's appeal from a January 22, 2013

decision of the Maine Unemployment Commission finding that Rith was not entitled to

unemployment compensation because he was discharged for misconduct.

On this appeal the court's role is to determine whether the Commission correctly

applied the law and whether its findings are supported by any competent evidence.

McPherson Timberlands Inc. v. Unemployment Insurance Commission, 1998 ME 177 'li

6, 714 A.2d 818. The court cannot overrule a decision of the Commission unless the

record before the Commission compels a contrary result. Id. The court should not

substitute is own judgment for that of the agency and must affirm findings of fact if

they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Rangeley Crossroads

Coalition v. Land Use Regulation Commission, 2008 ME 115 'li 10, 955 A.2d 223.

In this case there is a question whether the Commission correctly applied the

law. At the hearing the employer, Oakhurst Dairy, was contacted and informed the

hearing officer, "We're not going to oppose unemployment." R. 21. Neither the brief

filed by counsel for Rith nor the brief filed by counsel for the State addresses the

employer's decision not to contest unemployment. However, the court is constrained to note that both the hearing officer's and the Commission's decision are worded as if the

employer had appeared, had offered evidence, and had proven that Rith had engaged

in misconduct.

Thus the hearing officer's decision states that "the employer has the burden" of

proving misconduct, R. 11 (emphasis added), and goes on to state,

The employer in this case has demonstrated that the claimant's conduct was a culpable breach of the employee's duties or obligations or was a pattern or irresponsible behavior.

R. 12 (emphasis added). Thereafter the hearing officer's decision states as follows:

In this case, the employer has proven the elements of the following presumption to show a disregard for a material interest of the employer: Unreasonable violation of rules that should be inferred to exist from the common knowledge or from the nature of the employment.

R. 13 (emphasis added).

The Commission's decision reiterates the latter two statements in the exact same

language:

The employer in this case has demonstrated that the claimant's conduct was a culpable breach of the employee's duties or obligations or was a pattern or irresponsible behavior.

In this case, the employer has proven the elements of the following presumption to show a disregard for a material interest of the employer: Unreasonable violation of rules that should be inferred to exist from the common knowledge or from the nature of the employment.

R. 2 (emphasis added).

These statements cannot be squared with the record, which shows that the

employer did not contest the award of benefits and did not demonstrate or prove

anything.

2 Moreover, the hearing officer's allocation of the burden of proof on the employer

1s consistent with the Law Court's ruling in Bath Iron Works v. Unemployment

Insurance Commission, 2005 :ME 54 <[ 11, 870 A.2d 580, that the employer has the

burden of proving that a claimant engaged in misconduct within the meaning of 26

M.R.S. § 1043(23). As a result, the court seriously questions whether the Commission is

entitled to deny a claim for purported misconduct when the employer does not offer

evidence of misconduct or contest the award of benefits.

Even if the Commission has independent authority to look through the record

for evidence of misconduct that would meet the employer's burden of proof even

though the employer itself has declined to make any such effort, the decision below

cannot be affirmed.

Both the decision of the hearing officer and the decision of the Commission were

premised on a finding of that Rith had committed misconduct by violating an employer

rule. SeeR. 2, 11-12. There may be adequate evidence in the record from which the

Commission could have found that Rith had violated an employer rule by returning

late from his trip to Cambodia after he had requested and been denied additional

vacation days. There may also be a sufficient basis for the Commission's finding that the

employer's rule was reasonable and that disregard of that rule showed a disregard for a

material interest of the employer.

However, the statutory definition of misconduct for violation of employer rules

requires an "unreasonable violation of rules that are reasonably imposed and

communicated and equitably enforced." 26 M.R.S. § 1043(A)(2) (emphasis added). In

this case the unrebutted evidence in the record is that other employees had returned

3 late from vacation and had not been fired. R. 39, 45. 1 Moreover, there is unrebutted

evidence that Rith had received commendations from Oakhurst Dairy, e.g., R. 65-67,

and there is no evidence that his lateness in this instance was part of a pattern of

absenteeism or other undesirable behavior.

On this record, therefore, even assuming that the Commission could assess

whether there was misconduct despite Oakhurst Dairy's decision not to contest the

award of benefits, there is no evidence from which the Commission could have found

that the employer rule that Rith supposedly violated had been equitably enforced.

The entry shall be:

The January 22, 2013 decision of the Maine Unemployment Security Commission is reversed and the Commission is directed to order the payment of benefits. The Clerk is directed to incorporate this order in the docket by reference pursuant to Rule 79(a).

Dated: October 2-. 2013

Thomas D. Warren Justice, Superior Court

1 The record reflects that several employees had returned one week late from a two week vacation and had not been terminated. R. 39. Rith returned three or four days late from a two week trip to Cambodia.

4 2-19-13 CUMBERLAND AP-13-8 Docket No. _ _ _ _ _ _ __ Date Filed------~ County

Action _ _.::_80.::_C=----:AP=.. :P:.. :E=A=L:____ _ _ _ _ _ _ _ __

CHINHAK RITH UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION

vs.

Plaintiff's Attorney Defendant's Attorney PAUL ARANSON ESQ ELIZABETH WYMAN, AAG PO BOX 1687 6 STATE HOUSE STATION SANFORD ME 04073 AUGUSTA, ME 04333-0006

N. PAUL GAUVREAU, ESQ. 6 STATE HOUSE STATION AUGUSTA, ME 04333-0006 (05/31/13) Date of Entry

- '(- '-

.)