Manning v. Department of Employment Security
365 Ill. App. 3d 553, 850 N.E.2d 244 (2006)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee is ineligible for unemployment benefits if discharged for misconduct, which is a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable employer rule or policy that harms (or potentially harms) the employer's interests, even if the rule is unwritten or the conduct occurs off-premises, particularly if it relates to the work environment.
Facts:
- Rose Manning was employed as a medical assistant by Drs. Moran & Moran, S.C. from October 7, 1998, to May 18, 2004.
- Manning relied on a coworker, Tiffany Swanson, for transportation to work because Manning had lost her driver's license.
- On May 13, 2004, Swanson left work without Manning to pick up her child, stranding Manning.
- Manning became upset at work, cursing under her breath and slamming exam room doors, for which office management asked her to refrain.
- Later that evening, Swanson telephoned Manning several times, with Manning claiming Swanson left insulting and vulgar messages.
- In response, Manning called Swanson and left a hostile, intimidating, and vulgar message on Swanson's personal cellular phone voice mail, using profane language and expressing anger toward Swanson and other nurses at the office.
- Swanson brought the voicemail message to the attention of office management, who then informed Dr. Michael Milani, one of the employers.
- Dr. Milani confronted Manning about the message, and she was discharged on May 18, 2004, for making a "hostile and intimidating and vulgar phone call."
Procedural Posture:
- Rose Manning sought unemployment insurance after her discharge.
- A claims adjudicator denied Manning's claim for unemployment benefits, noting she was discharged for "unprofessional conduct."
- Manning filed an application for reconsideration, which the claims adjudicator also denied.
- Manning appealed to the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Department).
- A referee for the Department held a telephone hearing and affirmed the claims adjudicator’s determination, finding Manning ineligible due to misconduct.
- Manning appealed to the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security (Board).
- The Board affirmed the referee’s decision.
- Manning sought administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook County (trial court).
- The trial court affirmed the decision of the Board.
- Manning (appellant) appealed the trial court's decision to the Appellate Court of Illinois, First District (the court whose decision is being briefed).
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 hostile, intimidating, and vulgar voicemail message left for a coworker, even if off-premises and without an explicit prior warning or written policy, constitute "misconduct" disqualifying them from unemployment benefits under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act?
Opinions:
Majority - Presiding Justice Gallagher
Yes, Rose Manning's hostile, intimidating, and vulgar voicemail message to a coworker constituted "misconduct" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. The court affirmed the Board's decision, applying a "clearly erroneous" standard of review to the mixed question of law and fact. Under the Unemployment Insurance Act, individuals discharged for misconduct are ineligible for benefits. Misconduct is established by proving a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable employer rule or policy that either harmed the employer or was repeated despite prior warnings. The court found that even if the voicemail did not directly harm the employer, it was potentially harmful to its interests because hostile and intimidating language towards a coworker could adversely affect the work environment and employee morale and cooperation. The incident originated at work with Manning's disruptive behavior, and several profane comments in the message related to coworkers and the work environment. Regarding the "reasonable rule" element, the court stated that an employer is not required to have a written or formalized policy to prohibit such conduct. Common sense implies that the use of hostile, intimidating, and vulgar language intentionally and substantially disregards an employer's interests. The court cited Greenlaw v. Department of Employment Security and Caterpillar, Inc. v. Department of Employment Security to support the principle that standards of behavior an employer has a right to expect constitute a reasonable rule, and that misconduct can occur off-premises if it relates to the workplace. The court concluded that the Board was not clearly erroneous in determining that Manning violated a reasonable rule, thereby establishing misconduct.
Analysis:
This case clarifies the broad interpretation of "misconduct" under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, particularly regarding off-premises conduct and unwritten employer rules. It reinforces that potential harm to the work environment and employee morale is sufficient to meet the harm element of the misconduct test, rather than requiring actual, direct harm. The decision also emphasizes that employers are not required to have explicit written policies for universally understood standards of appropriate behavior, allowing for a "common sense" approach to defining reasonable rules against hostile conduct. This expansive view of misconduct makes it more challenging for employees discharged for interpersonal conflicts, even those occurring outside work hours, to claim unemployment benefits, especially if the conduct is deemed to originate from or impact the work environment.
