Opinion
NO. 2012 CA 1821
04-26-2013
NATASHA WILLIAMS v. KURT EYSINK, ADMINISTRATOR, LOUISIANA WORKFORCE COMMISSION, AND CARDINAL HEALTH 200, LLC
Thomas J. Hogan, Jr. Hammond, LA Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant, Natasha Williams Danelle L. Gilkes Baton Rouge, LA Attorney for Defendant-Appellee, Curt Eysink, 1Administrator, Louisiana Workforce Commission Aldric C. Poirier, Jr. Elizabeth S. Sconzert Mandeville, LA Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee, Cardinal Health 200, LLC
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
On Appeal from the
21 st Judicial District Court,
In and for the Parish of Tangipahoa,
State of Louisiana
Trial Court No. 2012-000757
Honorable Bruce Bennett, Judge Presiding
Thomas J. Hogan, Jr.
Hammond, LA
Attorney for Plaintiff-Appellant,
Natasha Williams
Danelle L. Gilkes
Baton Rouge, LA
Attorney for Defendant-Appellee,
Curt Eysink, Administrator, Louisiana
Workforce Commission
Aldric C. Poirier, Jr.
Elizabeth S. Sconzert
Mandeville, LA
Attorneys for Defendant-Appellee,
Cardinal Health 200, LLC
Mr. Eysink's first name was spelled Kurt in the caption, but was spelled Curt in the brief filed on behalf of himself and Louisiana Workforce Commission,
BEFORE: WHIPPLE, C.J., McCLENDON, AND HIGGINBOTHAM, JJ.
HIGGINBOTHAM , J.
Natasha Williams, plaintiff-appellant, appeals the district court's judgment affirming the decision of the Board of Review disqualifying her from unemployment benefits due to her misconduct during employment. For the following reason, we affirm.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
Williams was employed by Cardinal Health 200 L.L.C. (Cardinal Health) as a warehouse associate from September 10, 2007, until September 26, 2011. Williams's employment with Cardinal Health was terminated because Cardinal Health determined she failed to cooperate in the investigation of an incident by not being "truthful."
On September 14, 2011, during Williams's lunch break she went to McDonalds with her husband. Her co-workers, Derek Nelson and Chris Chappell, were also there. While ordering food, Williams turned around to see her husband in a physical altercation with Nelson. As a result of the altercation, Nelson was knocked unconscious and was transported by ambulance to a hospital. Williams left McDonalds with her husband and returned to work. On hearing about the incident and Nelson's inability to return to work that day, Williams's employer began an investigation in order to determine what happened. As part of the investigation, Williams spoke with a manager, Mr. Thomas, and a supervisor, Ms. Palmer, concerning the incident. Williams denied knowing the reason for the fight between her husband and Nelson. Williams was sent home on paid administrative leave pending the outcome of the investigation.
The following week after the incident Williams's employer questioned Nelson regarding the incident. Nelson stated that he had sent text messages to Williams that her husband had seen and that there had been a prior confrontation between the two of them in July 2011 involving the text messages.
Williams returned to work on September 19, 2011. She again was questioned about the incident by Ms, Mathieu, a senior regulatory specialist, and Mr. Thomas. When they asked if she knew of any reason why her husband and Nelson would fight, she again denied any knowledge of the cause. They then informed her that Nelson had provided a statement and asked if she wished to supply information, at that point, she verified the statement given by Nelson regarding the text messages and the confrontation in July 2011. She was later terminated on September 26, 2011, following the conclusion of the investigation, for violating company policy and failing to be truthful during an investigation.
Williams filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Office of Unemployment Insurance. She was originally allowed benefits until the employer appealed and an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) decided in favor of the employer. Subsequently, Williams appealed to the Board of Review, which affirmed the decision of the ALJ pursuant to La. R.S. 23:1601(2), disqualifying her for unemployment benefits. On March 7, 2012, Williams filed a petition for judicial review with the 21st Judicial District Court for Tangipahoa Parish, and, after a hearing on August 10, 2012, the district court affirmed the Board's decision. It is from the district court's judgment affirming the Board's decision that Williams appeals, citing as her only assignment of error that there was no evidence of intentional wrongdoing and the decision of the district court was wrong as a matter of law.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Appellate review of an unemployment compensation proceeding is provided for under Louisiana Employment Security Law, specifically, La. R.S. 23:1634. The scope of appellate review is limited to determining whether the facts are supported by sufficient and competent evidence and, in the absence of fraud, whether the facts, as a matter of law, justify the action taken. La. R.S. 23:1634(B); Fontenet v. Cypress Bayou Casino, 06-0300 (La. App. 1st Cir. 6/8/07), 964 So.2d 1035, 1038. Judicial review of the findings of the Board of Review does not permit the weighing of evidence, drawing of inferences, reevaluation of evidence, or substituting the views of the court for that of the Board of Review as to the correctness of the facts presented. Gonzales Home Health Care, L.L.C. v. Felder, 08-0798 (La. App. 1st Cir. 9/26/08), 994 So.2d 687, 690-91, writ not considered, 08-2568 (La. 1/9/09), 998 So.2d 730.
Louisiana Revised Statute 23:1634(B) provides in part: In any proceeding under this section the findings of the board of review as to the facts, if supported by sufficient evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law. No additional evidence shall be received by the court, but the court may order additional evidence to be taken before the board of review, and the board of review may, after hearing such additional evidence, modify its findings of fact or conclusions, and file with the court such additional or modified findings and conclusions, together with a transcript of the additional record.... An appeal may be taken from the decision of the district court to the circuit court of appeal in the same manner, but not inconsistent with the provisions of this Chapter, as is provided in civil cases.
--------
LAW AND ANALYSIS
Louisiana Revised Statutes 23:1601(2) provides that an individual is disqualified for benefits if he is discharged "for misconduct connected with his employment," defining misconduct to mean "mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction, neglect that places in jeopardy the lives or property of others, dishonesty, wrongdoing, violation of a law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to insure orderly work or the safety of others." Fontenet, 964 So.2d at 1037. When an employer seeks to deny unemployment benefits because of employee misconduct, the burden of proof is on the employer to establish such misconduct. Fontenet, 964 So.2d at 1037.
This court has held that the amendment of La. R.S. 23:1601(2) in 1990 to include a statutory definition of "misconduct" supplanted the prior jurisprudence standard of "misconduct" that required an intentional breach of the employer's rules or policies or a wanton disregard of the employer's interest. Fontenet, 964 So,2d at 1040-1041. In her sole assignment of error, Williams contends that the trial court was in error because there was no finding of intentional wrongdoing on her part. However, because the statutory definition of misconduct no longer requires that there must be an intentional breach of the employer's rules, the Board did not have to find her behavior intentional to be considered misconduct warranting the denial of benefits. See Fontenet ,_964 So.2d at 1038-1039.
According to Cardinal Health, Williams's employment with them ended because she did not comply with the company policy to be "truthful" and to assist in the investigation of the event involving physical violence between her husband and a co-worker off-site. In arguing that the trial court correctly assessed the Board of Review's conclusion that Williams's behavior amounted to misconduct as a matter of law, the Louisiana Workforce Commission points to the language in La. R.S. 23:1601(2) that, defines "misconduct" as "mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction., .dishonesty, wrongdoing,...or violation of a policy or rule adopted to insure orderly work or the safety of others." It contends that Williams demonstrated disregard for her employer's interests "by failing to give a complete and truthful account to the employer of the incident...when first questioned" regarding an incident that "could be construed as workplace violence" and that this showed "direct disregard of standards of behavior... as well as being a direct violation of company policy."
Three witnesses testified for the Louisiana Workforce Commission and Cardinal Health before the ALJ during the phone conference hearing: Mr. Thomas, Ms. Mathieu, and Ms. Palmer, while Williams testified with her attorney present. Thomas testified that Williams did not provide any information as to the reason for the fight between Nelson and her husband until after their interview with Nelson, and when they presented this information to Williams, she corroborated his testimony regarding the text messages. A copy of the company policy within the record states that employees should "cooperate during investigations and audits during your employment with Cardinal Health and after your employment ends," and "tell the truth." "Employees need to provide their cooperation and assistance during an audit or investigation so that information can be gathered accurately and completely. An employee that does not do so is subject to discipline, up to and including termination."
The witnesses for the employer corroborate that during her second interview with them, when presented with Nelson's testimony, Williams never gave any indication that she was hearing the information for the first time. Williams has since tried to maintain that she only learned of the ongoing animosity after the McDonald's incident, when her husband told her the Sunday before returning to work. In their testimony at the hearing, neither Mr. Thomas nor Ms. Mathieu confirmed that Williams conveyed to them that she had received the full story from her husband the Sunday prior to their second interview.
In concluding that Williams was not entitled to benefits, the ALJ made the following finding:
The best evidence is that [Williams] knew why her husband and Mr. Nelson got into a physical altercation and that she lied during the investigation into the incident. This was a violation of a company policy that she was aware of
In reviewing the ALJ's decision, the Board of Review pointed out inconsistencies in Williams's testimony and other prior statements Williams maintained at the hearing that she had not received or read the text messages in question that angered her husband. The cell phone that received the text messages from Nelson was either described as her cell phone or her husband's on different occasions, as noted by the Board in their opinion. During the hearing, Williams stated that the phone was her husband's, and she gave no reason as to why Nelson would have her husband's phone number, and yet later, in her letter of appeal to the Board, she stated that the cell phone was hers. She also testified that she had received no notice of a violation of company code or policy on the date of her termination; however, a copy of the policy stating the requirement of truthfulness during investigations along with her signed acknowledgment of the policy was provided in the record. The Board further noted that the information Williams provided in her initial unemployment claim did not conform to any testimony provided at the hearing or within her brief, and was thus further evidence of her inconsistency. The Board determined that Williams clearly mismanaged her position when she was dishonest, and she was discharged due to misconduct connected with her employment.
After a careful review of the record, we conclude that Cardinal Health and the Louisiana Workforce Commission have provided sufficient evidence to support the Board of Review's factual findings that Natasha Williams's actions were in disregard of the employer's policy and code of conduct regarding truthfulness during investigations. Thus, under La. R.S. 23:1634(B), the Board's factual findings are conclusive and our jurisdiction is limited to questions of law. Accordingly, we must determine whether the findings of fact, under Louisiana law, justify the Board's decision. Based on our review of the law, we determine that Williams's actions constituted "misconduct" as defined by La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a), and we conclude the Board's decision was legally correct.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, we affirm the judgment of the district court. Costs of this appeal may not be assessed against Williams under the facts of this case. See La. R.S. 23:1692.
AFFIRMED.