Adams v. Ward
151 Ill. Dec. 782, 565 N.E.2d 53, 206 Ill. App. 3d 719 (1990)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To deny unemployment benefits for "misconduct" under the amended Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, an employer must prove the employee committed a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy, and this violation resulted in actual, not potential, harm to the employer or other employees.
Facts:
- Charles E. Adams had worked for Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Company since December 1985, eventually becoming a janitor.
- As a janitor, Adams' duties included cleaning locker rooms where employees changed out of ink-stained uniforms.
- Adams knew there was a company practice of placing dirty uniforms intended for laundering into separate bins.
- On November 23, 1988, Adams found two ink-stained company uniforms in a pile of trash on the floor.
- Believing they were to be discarded, Adams swept the uniforms up with the trash and threw them into a dumpster.
- The uniforms were later retrieved from the dumpster by another employee.
- On the next work day, November 28, 1988, Adams was questioned, admitted to discarding the uniforms, and was fired.
Procedural Posture:
- Charles E. Adams applied for unemployment insurance benefits after being fired.
- A claims adjudicator for the Department of Employment Security denied his benefits.
- Adams appealed to a hearing referee, who reversed the adjudicator's decision and granted benefits.
- The employer, Wm. Wrigley, Jr., Company, appealed the referee's decision to the Department of Employment Security Board of Review (the Board).
- The Board reversed the hearing referee's decision, denying Adams benefits.
- Adams sought judicial review of the Board's decision in the circuit court (a state trial court).
- The circuit court reversed the Board's decision, finding in favor of Adams.
- The Board, as defendant, appealed the circuit court's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does an employee's act of throwing away two company uniforms, which were subsequently recovered, constitute "misconduct" under the amended Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, which requires proof of a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule that has harmed the employing unit?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice LaPorta
No. The employee's conduct does not constitute misconduct because the employer failed to prove all three elements required by the statute: the existence of a reasonable rule, a willful violation of that rule, and actual harm to the employer. The amended Unemployment Insurance Act establishes a three-part test for misconduct, requiring proof of: (1) a deliberate and willful violation, (2) of a reasonable rule or policy, and (3) that the violation caused actual harm. Here, the employer failed to prove any of the three elements. First, Wrigley had no clearly articulated rule regarding when a uniform was too soiled to be laundered and should be discarded. Second, the evidence did not support a finding of willfulness, as Adams testified he believed the uniforms were trash, and the hearing referee who heard the testimony found his actions accidental. Finally, the employer suffered no actual harm; because the uniforms were retrieved, no property was destroyed, and the minor inconvenience of retrieving them does not meet the statute's new requirement of actual harm.
Concurring - Justice Rakowski
While I concur in the judgment to affirm, I disagree with the majority's reasoning regarding willfulness and harm. The Board's finding that Adams's conduct was willful was not against the manifest weight of the evidence, as it was based on his alleged statement about not wanting to pick up after 'babies.' A reviewing court should not reweigh such evidence. Furthermore, construing 'harm' so narrowly that no harm exists merely because the property was recovered is a dangerous precedent; it could illogically allow an employee caught stealing to receive benefits if the stolen items are returned. The correct basis for affirming the circuit court's decision is the employer's failure to establish the existence of a reasonable rule governing Adams's conduct.
Analysis:
This case is significant as it provides the first judicial interpretation of the 1988 amendment to the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act defining 'misconduct.' The decision establishes a new, more stringent three-part test that employers must meet to deny benefits, shifting the legal landscape in favor of employees. The most critical change is the requirement of proving actual, not merely potential, harm, which makes it substantially harder for employers to disqualify former employees. The concurrence highlights the potential interpretive problems with the 'actual harm' standard, suggesting future litigation will be needed to define its scope, particularly in cases involving theft or other serious misconduct where property is recovered.
Unlock the full brief for Adams v. Ward