Petrovic v. The Department of Employment Security
2016 IL 118562, 51 N.E.3d 726, 2016 Ill. LEXIS 262 (2016)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To disqualify an employee from unemployment benefits for 'misconduct,' an employer must prove a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable, known rule or policy that caused harm or was repeated after a warning, or, in the absence of a known rule, that the conduct was illegal or constituted a prima facie intentional tort.
Facts:
- Zlata Petrovic was employed by American Airlines as a tower planner from June 6, 1988, until January 24, 2012.
- On January 1, 2012, Petrovic received a call from a friend at another airline asking for a favor for a passenger flying on American Airlines.
- Petrovic then requested the catering department to deliver a bottle of champagne to the passenger's flight.
- Petrovic subsequently asked a flight attendant if an upgrade from business to first class would be possible for the passenger, and the passenger was indeed upgraded.
- On January 24, 2012, American Airlines terminated Petrovic's employment, stating her actions violated company policies #16 (misrepresentation) and #34 (dishonesty) by requesting unauthorized champagne and an upgrade.
- Petrovic testified that she was not aware of any rule or policy requiring manager approval for such requests and that similar favors had been done for customers in the past by her and acquaintances from other airlines.
Procedural Posture:
- Zlata Petrovic applied for unemployment insurance benefits with the Department of Employment Security following her termination.
- American Airlines filed a protest, alleging Petrovic was ineligible for benefits due to 'misconduct.'
- A referee for the Department denied Petrovic’s application after a hearing.
- The Board of Review affirmed the referee’s determination.
- Petrovic filed a complaint for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Cook County.
- The Circuit Court reversed the Board’s decision, finding Petrovic's actions did not constitute 'misconduct' and that she was entitled to benefits.
- The Department, Board, and Director of Employment Security (collectively, the State defendants) appealed the Circuit Court’s judgment to the Illinois Appellate Court, First District.
- The Appellate Court reversed the Circuit Court, reinstating the Board’s order denying benefits.
- Zlata Petrovic (appellant) filed a petition for leave to appeal with the Illinois Supreme Court.
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 unauthorized request for a customer upgrade and complimentary service constitute 'misconduct' sufficient to disqualify them from unemployment benefits under Section 602(A) of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, where the employer failed to demonstrate a deliberate and willful violation of a clearly expressed rule, and the conduct was not illegal or intentionally tortious?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Burke
No, Zlata Petrovic's actions did not constitute 'misconduct' under Section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act because American Airlines failed to prove a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable, known rule or policy, and her conduct was not illegal or a prima facie intentional tort. The court clarified that 'misconduct' requires a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable rule or policy that the employee knew was prohibited, or conduct that is illegal or an intentional tort. The employer failed to introduce competent evidence of an express rule prohibiting Petrovic's specific actions of requesting champagne or an upgrade, or that Petrovic was aware of such a policy. The general policies cited in her termination letter (misrepresentation, dishonesty) were not introduced at the hearing. The court rejected the broad 'commonsense exception' previously used by appellate courts, limiting it strictly to conduct that is illegal or constitutes a prima facie intentional tort. Since Petrovic's conduct did not fall into these categories and no specific known rule was deliberately violated, the Board's decision denying benefits was clearly erroneous.
Analysis:
This case significantly narrows the definition of 'misconduct' under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, specifically reining in the 'commonsense exception' previously applied by appellate courts. By requiring evidence of an employee's awareness of a rule or limiting the exception to illegal or intentionally tortious conduct, the Supreme Court reinforces the Act's purpose of providing benefits for involuntary unemployment. This makes it more difficult for employers to disqualify former employees from benefits based on vague policy violations or conduct not clearly prohibited, increasing the burden on employers to clearly communicate workplace rules.
