Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin
Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance
Subject: Quality Living Services, Inc. v. LIRC and Nicole L. Huebner, Case
05CV1430 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Waukesha Co., December 5, 2005)
Digest Codes: MC 660.01 MC 690 MC
665.01
The employee worked as a caregiver for the employer, a business
which provides services for people with disabilities. On her last day of work
the employee was very busy, and forgot to document the duties that she performed
for the clients, which included forgetting to sign the clients’ medication
sign-off list. The employee also failed to unpack the clients’ lunchboxes and
clean them out. She was discharged for these failures, and because the employer
believed she had overused the company cell phone.
The ALJ found no misconduct, and the commission affirmed. The employer had
permitted the employee to use its cell phone, and she was responsible for paying
for her time if she used more than a specified amount of minutes. There was no
evidence that the employee had engaged in any wrongdoing with regard to her use
of the cell phone. The employee did fail to perform some of her duties on her
last day of work because it was a very busy day and she forgot. She testified
that, in the past, if she forgot to complete her documentation, she was notified
by the people on the next shift and had an opportunity to go back and fix the
problem. The employee’s actions on her last day of work were isolated failures
in good performance that were not undertaken in substantial disregard of the
employer’s interests.
In its brief to the court the employer emphasized that the employee had a
pattern of performance errors beyond those discussed above. However, those past
errors had not been cited as a reason for discharge, and the commission argued
that they should not be considered.
Held: Affirmed. The court rejected the employer’s argument that it should
consider the employee’s entire history, and limited its analysis to the reasons
the employer gave for her termination. The court noted that it would be
reasonable to find that the employee’s actions were misconduct, but that,
applying great weight deference, it must affirm the commission because the
commission’s determination was also a reasonable one.
Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.
[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]