Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance


Subject: Daniel M. Quinnell vs. LIRC and Wisconsin Power & Light Co. aka Alliant, Case 00 CV 270 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Fond du Lac County, September 12, 2001) 

full text available here

Digest Codes: MC 652.3   PC 714.02   PC 714.06   PC 714.10 

Quinnell worked for WP&L as a customer field representative. He began working on May 1, 1991. Quinnell was required to be covered by WP&L's drug policy by U.S. Department of Transportation regulations which applied to his job. He received a copy of the policy in 1995. On January 1, 1995 he signed a statement acknowledging awareness of the requirements and of the consequences of its violation. On October 7, 1996 Quinnell was informed of a positive drug test result. He conceded that the test results were accurate. He was placed on disciplinary suspension and was allowed to return to work after signing a last chance agreement.

His name came up for a random drug test on December 15, 1999. He submitted a urine sample that on subsequent testing was rejected as adulterated. Quinnell was discharged and applied for unemployment benefits. The commission found that his discharge was for misconduct and that he was not eligible for benefits.

Quinnell argued that he did not have an opportunity to adulterate the sample and that the results were not accurate. He also contended that the file documentation demonstrated that the chain of custody had not been maintained.

Held: The administrative law judge and the commission determined that Quinnell was not credible. The chain of custody material submitted by WP&L contained evidence that demonstrated that the specimen was properly collected, labeled and sealed. The administrative law judge was entitled to believe that evidence and conclude that the records were proper. He was free to not give weight to Quinnell's contentions that the records were falsified. The administrative law judge believed that evidence. The record is sufficient to support the commission's decision. It is therefore affirmed. Benefits denied.


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 ]


uploaded 2001/10/02