Eastham v. The Housing Authority of Jefferson County
2014 IL App (5th) 130209, 22 N.E.3d 499 (2014)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
For unemployment insurance purposes, an employee's off-duty conduct constitutes "misconduct" only if it involves a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable employer rule governing behavior "in performance of his work," which requires a sufficient nexus between the off-duty conduct and the workplace, and results in harm to the employer.
Facts:
- William F. Eastham III was employed by the Housing Authority of Jefferson County in its maintenance facility.
- The Housing Authority had a drug- and alcohol-free workplace policy prohibiting employees from possessing, using, consuming, or being under the influence of a controlled substance "while on Housing Authority premises and/or while in the course of employment."
- The policy defined "under the influence" as having any measurable amount of a prohibited substance in any test of the employee's breath, blood, urine, hair, or other permitted test.
- On December 19, 2008, Eastham was required to submit to a random drug test.
- After taking the test, Eastham informed his supervisor, Janice DePlanty, that he had smoked small amounts of marijuana twice during a vacation a few weeks prior (November 15 and November 22, 2008) and believed he would fail the test.
- Eastham repeated this admission to the Housing Authority's executive director, Tom Upchurch, two days later.
- Eastham was discharged for violating the drug policy on December 22, 2008.
- Subsequently, the results of Eastham's drug test came back negative.
Procedural Posture:
- William F. Eastham III filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits, which a Department of Employment Security claims adjudicator denied, finding his marijuana use constituted willful misconduct.
- Eastham requested an administrative appeal of this decision, and a Department of Employment Security referee affirmed the claims adjudicator’s decision.
- The matter then proceeded to the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security (appellant Board of Review), which issued a final administrative decision upholding the denial of benefits, interpreting "while in the course of employment" to mean Eastham's entire tenure of employment.
- Eastham filed a petition for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Jefferson County, which reversed the Board of Review's decision, finding that the Board misapplied the definition of "in the course of employment" and that the policy was unreasonable as interpreted.
- The Housing Authority of Jefferson County (appellant Housing Authority) and the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security appealed the circuit court's decision to the Illinois Appellate Court, Fifth 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 admitted off-duty marijuana use, which results in a negative drug test, constitute "misconduct" under the Unemployment Insurance Act when the employer's policy prohibits being "under the influence...while in the course of employment," thereby disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chapman
No, an employee's admitted off-duty marijuana use, resulting in a negative drug test, does not constitute "misconduct" under the Unemployment Insurance Act. The court held that the employer's policy prohibiting being "under the influence...while in the course of employment" applies only to conduct related to work duties or incidental thereto, and a negative test demonstrates no violation of the "under the influence" definition. The court reviewed the Board of Review's interpretation of "in the course of employment" de novo, as it is a question of law. It rejected the Board's broad interpretation that the phrase means any time the plaintiff was an employee, citing established Illinois workers' compensation law, which defines "in the course of employment" as occurring at a place where the employee is reasonably expected to fulfill duties and while performing those duties. Applying this definition, Eastham's off-duty conduct during vacation did not occur "in the course of employment." Furthermore, the court found Eastham did not violate the policy's definition of "under the influence" because his drug test was negative, despite his belief it would be positive. The court distinguished McAllister v. Board of Review, noting that Eastham was not in a safety-sensitive position like the bus driver in McAllister and, crucially, tested negative. The court concluded that interpreting the policy broadly to prohibit off-duty conduct without a positive test, especially for non-safety-sensitive roles, would render the rule unreasonable for unemployment benefits purposes, as a reasonable rule must be "connected to the employee’s performance of his job." The federal Drug-Free Workplace Act (41 U.S.C. § 8103) cited by the defendants only requires policies prohibiting unlawful activity in the workplace, not off-duty conduct. The court reiterated that conduct justifying discharge is not necessarily "misconduct" disqualifying an employee from unemployment benefits.
Analysis:
This case provides a critical interpretation of "misconduct" under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly regarding employer drug policies and off-duty conduct. It reinforces that not all grounds for employee discharge equate to "misconduct" sufficient to deny unemployment benefits, and that the Act must be liberally construed in favor of granting benefits. The decision clarifies the scope of "in the course of employment" for such policies, limiting it to work-related duties or incidental activities, thus protecting employees from overreaching employer rules regarding their private lives, especially in non-safety-sensitive positions. It further emphasizes the necessity of a positive drug test, or demonstrable impairment, for an "under the influence" policy violation where the policy's definition of "under the influence" relies on test results.
