Peyton v. Department of Workforce Services , 735 Utah Adv. Rep. 46 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                      
    2013 UT App 130
    _________________________________________________________
    THE UTAH COURT OF APPEALS
    DEANDRA PEYTON,
    Petitioner,
    v.
    DEPARTMENT OF WORKFORCE SERVICES,
    Respondent.
    Per Curiam Decision
    No. 20120652‐CA
    Filed May 23, 2013
    Original Proceeding in this Court
    DeAndra Peyton, Petitioner Pro Se
    Amanda B. McPeck, Attorney for Respondent
    Before JUDGES DAVIS, THORNE, and VOROS.
    PER CURIAM:
    ¶1     DeAndra Peyton petitions for review of the Workforce
    Appeals Board’s (the Board) decision affirming the denial of
    benefits and finding that Peyton was discharged for just cause. We
    decline to disturb the Board’s decision.
    ¶2     A claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits if she
    was discharged for just cause. See Utah Code Ann. § 35A‐4‐
    405(2)(a) (LexisNexis 2011). The determination of whether an
    employer had just cause to terminate an employee is a mixed
    question of law and fact. See Smith v. Workforce Appeals Bd., 
    2011 UT App 68
    , ¶ 9, 
    252 P.3d 372
    . We disturb the Board’s findings of fact
    only if they are “not supported by substantial evidence when
    viewed in light of the whole record before the court.” Utah Code
    Ann. § 63G‐4‐403(4)(g) (LexisNexis 2011). This court will uphold
    the Board’s decision applying law to facts “so long as it is within
    the realm of reasonableness and rationality.” See Arrow Legal
    Peyton v. Department of Workforce Services
    Solutions Grp., PC v. Department of Workforce Servs., 
    2007 UT App 9
    ,
    ¶ 6, 
    156 P.3d 830
    .
    ¶3     To establish just cause for a termination, the elements of
    culpability, knowledge, and control must be shown. See Utah
    Admin. Code R994‐405‐202. The Board determined that each of
    those elements had been met. Peyton contends that based upon the
    evidence presented, there was no just cause to terminate her.
    ¶4     Culpability is established if the conduct causing the
    discharge is “so serious that continuing the employment
    relationship would jeopardize the employer’s rightful interest.” 
    Id.
    R994‐405‐202(1). Peyton was terminated after her employer learned
    that she had been eavesdropping on a conversation between
    several of her superiors. Peyton acknowledges that this was a
    mistake in judgment but was otherwise an isolated event that
    should not have resulted in termination. Accordingly, she argues
    that her conduct was not so serious as to jeopardize the employer’s
    rightful interest. However, the Board found that this was not an
    isolated incident. Peyton had just left a meeting with her superiors
    that addressed a prior warning for inappropriate behavior. Further,
    she had received warnings for inappropriate behavior in the past.
    The Board also determined that Peyton’s act of eavesdropping on
    her superiors constituted a breach of trust “that is nearly
    impossible to reestablish.” Accordingly, based upon these
    circumstances the Board determined that Peyton was culpable.
    ¶5     To establish knowledge, an employer must show that the
    claimant “had knowledge of the conduct the employer expected.”
    Utah Admin. Code R994‐405‐202(2). “There does not need to be
    evidence of a deliberate intent to harm the employer; however, it
    must be shown that the claimant should have been able to
    anticipate the negative effect of the conduct.” 
    Id.
     The Board
    determined that despite the fact that Peyton did not know her
    eavesdropping would lead to her termination, she could have
    anticipated that there would be negative consequences if her
    conduct was discovered, and she should have known that such
    20120652‐CA                      2               
    2013 UT App 130
    Peyton v. Department of Workforce Services
    conduct was harmful to her employer’s interest. In so deciding, the
    Board found that it is “universally understood that one should not
    listen at closed doorways to private conversations.” Accordingly,
    the Board determined that Peyton “should have known she could
    not stand at the doorway and listen in on that private meeting.”
    ¶6      The element of control is established by showing that the
    conduct causing the discharge was within the employee’s control.
    See 
    id.
     R994‐405‐202(3). Peyton asserts that she did not have the
    ability to control her actions because the meeting she had with her
    supervisors to discuss her prior conduct did not end until 9:45 in
    the morning. Because of this she was unable to take her anti‐
    anxiety medicine, which she was supposed to take at 9:30 every
    morning. Accordingly, she argues that the fifteen minute delay in
    taking her medications made her unable to control her own actions.
    The Board found that if Peyton needed to take a break during the
    meeting to take her medicine, she could have asked. Further, the
    Board determined that Peyton had failed to adequately explain
    why a fifteen minute delay in taking her medication would cause
    her to refuse to return to work when so directed after her meeting
    or cause her decision to eavesdrop on a private conversation.
    ¶7     The Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial
    evidence in the record as a whole, and the Board’s decision that
    Peyton was discharged for just cause based upon the employer’s
    establishment of culpability, knowledge, and control is reasonable
    and rational. Accordingly, we decline to disturb the Board’s
    decision disqualifying Peyton from receiving benefits based upon
    her termination for just cause.
    20120652‐CA                     3                
    2013 UT App 130
                                

Document Info

Docket Number: 20120652-CA

Citation Numbers: 2013 UT App 130, 302 P.3d 1255, 735 Utah Adv. Rep. 46, 2013 Utah App. LEXIS 132, 2013 WL 2255596

Judges: Davis, Per Curiam, Thorne, Voros

Filed Date: 5/23/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 11/13/2024