Lena Saavedra v. Texas Workforce Commission and the Woodlands Academy Preparatory School ( 2014 )

In The
Court of Appeals
Ninth District of Texas at Beaumont
____________________
NO. 09-12-00567-CV
____________________
LENA SAAVEDRA, Appellant
V.
TEXAS WORKFORCE COMMISSION AND THE WOODLANDS
ACADEMY PREPARATORY SCHOOL, Appellees
_______________________________________________________ ______________
On Appeal from the 359th District Court
Montgomery County, Texas
Trial Cause No. 11-10-11289 CV
________________________________________________________ _____________
MEMORANDUM OPINION
Lena Saavedra (Saavedra) appeals the trial court’s judgment, affirming the
Texas Workforce Commission’s (TWC) denial of Saavedra’s claim for
unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Background Facts
Saavedra was employed as a math teacher at The Woodlands Academy
Preparatory School (Woodlands Prep) from August 20, 2007, until the close of the
2010 school year. On or about May 7, 2010, Kenneth West (West), the headmaster
1
at Woodlands Prep, gave Saavedra a performance review, and there was no
indication in the review that her performance was unsatisfactory. Woodlands Prep
also offered her a new contract in May of 2010.
Saavedra testified that she asked West if they could meet on May 25, 2010,
to discuss the contract. At that meeting, Saavedra asked West if Woodlands Prep
would pay her more money in the form of a stipend for the following year. West
testified that Saavedra had a piece of paper at the meeting that had the number of
minutes she had worked over the past three years and how many minutes she had
been off, and that it was the first time he had ever seen that type of documentation.
West also testified that he told Saavedra he would consider her request. West
spoke to Saavedra’s Department Supervisor, Karen Lilly (Lilly), about Saavedra’s
request.
West, Lilly, and Jolynn Buckingham (Buckingham), the Director of
Admissions and Communications, met with Saavedra the next day on May 26,
2010. Saavedra testified that during the meeting, West discussed Saavedra’s past
performance, told her he reviewed her file and found past issues, and stated that
she did not “seem to be happy here.” Both Saavedra and West testified that West
spoke to Saavedra in the meeting about prior issues. West testified at trial that they
had prior problems with Saavedra regarding her workbook use, textbook
2
selections, and grading procedures, as well as her failure to follow the direction of
the department chairperson. The testimony from West and Saavedra established
that Saavedra became frustrated or upset and walked out of the meeting. As she
was leaving the meeting, Saavedra stated that if she had another job she would quit
her job at Woodlands Prep.
Buckingham followed Saavedra out of the meeting and asked her to
apologize to West and to return to the meeting. Buckingham testified that Saavedra
then stated West had something wrong with him and that he should apologize to
Saavedra. Upon her later return to the meeting, Saavedra either asked West not to
look at her because he would make her start crying again, or stated that she could
not look at him. West testified that Lilly and Buckingham told him that Saavedra
made disrespectful comments about him after the May 26, 2010 meeting. In an
audio recording of Lilly’s interview with the TWC, which was played at trial, Lilly
stated that later in the day on May 26th, Saavedra made derogatory remarks about
West’s demeanor: “[Saavedra] said that [West] had beady eyes. And [West] had a
smirk on his face. And that [Saavedra] was nervous sometimes teaching because
she thought [West] was lurking in the hallways.”
On June 10, 2010, Saavedra and West met again. West informed Saavedra it
was not “going to work out” and her employment was terminated. West admitted
3
at trial that he never told Saavedra she was either insubordinate or disrespectful.
He testified he told her that “this isn’t going to work and you’re not going to be
able to work here anymore.”
West testified that the president of the School Board advised him that
Saavedra’s contract offer was void because she requested a stipend or attempted to
renegotiate the contract. Additionally, the school’s handbook states that an
employee may be terminated for “insubordination” to administrators. West further
testified the Board told him that if Saavedra was being insubordinate he had their
approval to terminate her employment. West also testified that Saavedra’s
disrespectful comments and behavior, her leaving the meeting and refusing to
return, and her comments to Lilly and Buckingham about him constituted
insubordination.
At the trial, Lilly testified that she did not think Saavedra was being
insubordinate, which was defined by Saavedra’s attorney as “refusing an order or
direct order to do something[,]” in the meeting on May 26, 2010. Asked if
Saavedra was disrespectful, or disobeyed any instructions, Buckingham also stated
“no.”
After her termination, Saavedra filed for unemployment benefits with the
TWC. Woodlands Prep denied that Saavedra was entitled to unemployment
4
benefits. In the July 20, 2010 telephone statement taken by the TWC investigator,
West stated that Saavedra was terminated for “insubordination,” that Saavedra was
insubordinate during a meeting, and that Saavedra said “she had never worked for
someone like [West] . . . she walked out of the meeting without permission . . . we
talked [sic] her unwillingness to follow the directives of head Math Dept. Karen
Lilly. . . .” On July 27, 2010, the TWC denied her claim for unemployment
benefits. Saavedra appealed that decision to the TWC Appeal Tribunal, and a
hearing was held on September 23, 2010. Concluding there was insufficient
evidence to support Woodland Prep’s claim of insubordination, the TWC Appeal
Tribunal reversed the prior TWC decision and awarded unemployment benefits to
Saavedra.
Woodlands Prep then appealed that decision to the full TWC Commission.
On January 12, 2011, the Commission reversed the Appeal Tribunal’s ruling and
denied Saavedra any benefits. The Commission determined that Saavedra was
dismissed for misconduct under section 207.044 of the Texas Unemployment
Compensation Act. Saavedra filed a motion for rehearing with the Commission,
and a rehearing was held on August 9, 2011. On September 20, 2011, the
Commission affirmed the January 12, 2011 ruling.
5
Pursuant to Chapter 212 of the Labor Code, Saavedra then filed a petition in
the Montgomery County district court. She requested “judicial review” of the
TWC’s decision. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 212.202 (West 2006). After a bench
trial, the trial court entered a judgment affirming the decision of the TWC and
finding that substantial evidence supported the TWC’s decision. Saavedra
appealed.
Standard of Review
We exercise de novo review to determine if the trial court erred in its
determination that there was substantial evidence to support the TWC decision. See
Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 212.202(a); see also Firemen’s & Policemen’s Civil Serv.
Comm’n v. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d 953, 956-57 (Tex. 1984); Blanchard v. Brazos
Forest Products, L.P., 353 S.W.3d 569, 572 (Tex. App.—Fort Worth 2011, pet.
denied). “Substantial evidence is more than a scintilla, but less than a
preponderance of the evidence.” City of Houston v. Tippy, 991 S.W.2d 330, 334
(Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 1999, no pet.). A TWC ruling is supported by
substantial evidence when “the evidence introduced before the trial court shows
facts in existence at the time of the TEC’s decision that reasonably support the
decision.” Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex.
1998). Whether the TWC’s decision is supported by substantial evidence is a
6
question of law. Blanchard, 353 S.W.3d at 573. If the TWC’s decision is
unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, it will be set aside. Murray v. Tex.
Workforce Comm’n, 337 S.W.3d 522, 524 (Tex. App.—Dallas 2011, no pet.). A
decision is unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious if it is made without regard to the
law or the facts. Id.
At the trial below and now on appeal, the findings of the TWC carry a
presumption of validity which a reviewing court cannot ignore or disregard. See
Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d at 708; Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986).
The TWC is the primary finder of the facts, and the reviewing court may not
substitute its judgment for the TWC’s judgment on controverted fact issues.
Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d at 956; Blanchard, 353 S.W.3d at 572. In our review, we
will look at the evidence presented to the trial court, not the agency record. See
Nuernberg v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 858 S.W.2d 364, 365 (Tex. 1993).
Discussion
On appeal, Saavedra articulates three issues: whether her actions constitute
misconduct under section 201.012 of the Texas Labor Code, whether substantial
evidence supports the district court’s decision to affirm the TWC’s decision to
deny her unemployment benefits, and whether the TWC’s decision was made
without reference to the facts and was unreasonable, arbitrary and capricious. All
7
three of her issues are subsumed in the following issue: whether there was
substantial evidence to support the TWC’s decision denying Saavedra
unemployment benefits on the basis of misconduct.
Section 207.044(a) of the Texas Labor Code disqualifies an individual from
receiving unemployment benefits if the person was discharged for “misconduct
connected with the individual’s last work.” Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 207.044(a)
(West 2006). Section 201.012 of the Texas Labor Code defines “misconduct”:
(a) “Misconduct” means mismanagement of a position of
employment by action or inaction, neglect that
jeopardizes the life or property of another, intentional
wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a
law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure the
orderly work and the safety of employees.
(b) The term “misconduct” does not include an act in
response to an unconscionable act of an employer or
superior.
Tex. Lab. Code Ann. § 201.012 (West 2006). Mismanagement requires
“intent, or such a degree of carelessness as to evidence a disregard of the
consequences, whether manifested through action or inaction.” Mercer, 701
S.W.2d at 831.
At the trial below, the district court heard testimony from West,
Saavedra, Lilly, and Buckingham, and each side introduced several exhibits,
8
including copies of items submitted to the Commission. In its January 12,
2011 ruling, the TWC found:
Rather, the Commission concludes that the claimant’s actions and
comments on May 26, 2010 showed such contempt for the head of
school’s authority as to be insubordinate. The claimant thus
mismanaged her position of employment by actions rising to the level
of misconduct connected with the work.
At trial, the testimony from West and Saavedra established that prior to May
25, 2010, Woodland’s Prep offered Saavedra a new contract for the 2010-2011
school year. She did not sign the contract, but instead asked for additional
compensation to be included in the contract. As a result of her request for more
compensation, West and Saavedra’s immediate supervisor, Lilly, reviewed
Saavedra’s record and past performance. On May 26, 2010, West, Lilly, and
Buckingham met with Saavedra about past problems, and Saavedra became upset,
left the meeting, and made comments about West to Lilly and Buckingham.
Saavedra’s statement that she would quit the next day if she had another job,
walking out of the meeting, and commenting negatively about West to Lilly
provided substantial evidence to support the Commission’s finding that Saavedra
was disqualified from receiving benefits because of insubordination toward
administrators, and that her actions constituted mismanagement rising to the level
of misconduct. See Tex. Lab. Code Ann. §§ 201.012, 207.044(a); see also
9
Blanchard, 353 S.W.3d at 574 (holding that employee’s conduct in ignoring
customer complaint and engaging in “‘rude and destructive behavior’” was
substantial evidence of mismanagement); Anderson v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n,
No. 05-02-01595-CV, 2003 Tex. App. LEXIS 4879 (Tex. App.—Dallas June 5,
2003, pet. denied) (mem. op.) (concluding that insubordination is misconduct).
Saavedra argues that the Commission erroneously denied her benefits.
However, the issue on appeal is not whether the Commission reached the correct
conclusion based upon what may be characterized as conflicting interpretations of
the respective evidence, testimony, and meetings, but whether or not the
administrative decision was reasonable. Brinkmeyer, 662 S.W.2d at 956. Saavedra
argues that the Commission and the trial court erred in denying her benefits
because her actions from May 26 to June 10, 2010, do not meet the statutory
definition of “misconduct.” In support of her argument, Saavedra cites to
Hunnicutt v. Texas Employee Commission, 949 S.W.2d 52 (Tex. App.—Amarillo
1997), which was reversed by the Texas Supreme Court in Collingsworth General
Hospital v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1998). She also cites to Lohmuller v.
Texas Workforce Commission, No. 14-00-00008-CV, 2000 Tex. App. LEXIS 8497
(Tex. App.—Houston [14th Dist.] 2000, no pet.), a Fourteenth Court of Appeals
decision holding that an employee’s refusal to work was due to the employer’s
10
“unconscionable act” of demanding that the employee work for a period of time
without pay, and, therefore, the employee’s conduct did not meet the definition of
misconduct under section 201.012. Lohmuller is not applicable here. There is no
evidence in the record that Woodlands Prep was trying to get Saavedra to work
without pay or that the school was otherwise engaging in an illegal or
unconscionable act by having her attend the meeting of May 26, 2010.
The evidence presented by Saavedra does not show that the TWC’s decision
was unreasonable, arbitrary, or capricious, nor does it conclusively negate all
reasonable support for the TWC’s decision. See Murray, 337 S.W.3d at 524; City
of Houston v. Morris, 23 S.W.3d 505, 508 (Tex. App.—Houston [1st Dist.] 2000,
no pet.). Based on this record, we conclude the trial court properly held as a matter
of law that substantial evidence supports the TWC’s decision to deny benefits to
Saavedra. All of Saavedra’s issues are overruled. We affirm the trial court’s
judgment.
AFFIRMED.
_________________________
LEANNE JOHNSON
Justice
Submitted on April 24, 2014
Opinion Delivered June 12, 2014
Before McKeithen, C.J., Kreger and Johnson, JJ.
11