Siler v. Department of Employment Security
140 Ill. Dec. 109, 192 Ill. App. 3d 971, 549 N.E.2d 760 (1989)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, as amended, an employee's discharge for mere incapacity, inadvertence, or negligence does not constitute 'misconduct' sufficient to disqualify them from benefits; the employer must prove the employee engaged in a 'deliberate and willful' violation of a reasonable rule or policy.
Facts:
- The plaintiff was employed as a maintenance engineer for the BBR Chicago Youth Center for approximately seven and a half years.
- The plaintiff's supervisor, Delores Bader, claimed his job performance had deteriorated over the last year and a half.
- Bader issued the plaintiff several verbal and written warnings for performance issues, including improperly cleaned rooms, unsecured equipment, a leaky radiator, and failure to log repairs or order supplies.
- In September 1987, Bader placed the plaintiff on a 90-day probationary period due to his performance.
- The plaintiff contended that some issues, like debris on carpets, were due to ongoing building rehabilitation.
- On January 20, 1988, Bader sent the plaintiff a termination notice stating his performance had deteriorated after an initial improvement during probation.
- The BBR Chicago Youth Center fired the plaintiff on January 22, 1988.
Procedural Posture:
- A claims adjudicator for the Illinois Department of Employment Security initially found the plaintiff eligible for unemployment benefits.
- The plaintiff's former employer, BBR Chicago Youth Center, appealed the adjudicator's decision.
- A referee for the Department of Employment Security held a hearing and reversed the decision, finding the plaintiff was discharged for 'misconduct' and thus ineligible for benefits.
- The plaintiff appealed to the Board of Review of the Illinois Department of Employment Security, which affirmed the referee's decision.
- The plaintiff filed an administrative review action in the circuit court (trial court).
- The circuit court reversed the Board of Review’s decision, finding the plaintiff eligible for benefits.
- The Board of Review (appellant) appealed the circuit court's judgment to the Appellate Court of Illinois.
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 failure to perform their duties to an employer's satisfaction, resulting in their discharge, constitute 'misconduct' under the amended Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, which requires a 'deliberate and willful' violation of a reasonable rule or policy?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Cerda
No. The employee's inadequate performance does not constitute 'misconduct' under the amended statute. To be ineligible for unemployment benefits, an employee's actions must rise to the level of a 'deliberate and willful' violation of a known employer rule, not mere carelessness or inability to perform assigned tasks. The court reasoned that the legislature, by amending the statutory definition of 'misconduct' effective January 1, 1988, specifically removed 'carelessness or negligence' and added the 'deliberate and willful' requirement. This change signals a clear legislative intent to provide benefits for individuals discharged for incapacity, inadvertence, or poor performance. In this case, neither the referee nor the Board of Review made a specific finding that the plaintiff's actions were deliberate and willful. The finding that he merely 'disregarded the employer’s requirements' is insufficient to meet the new, stricter standard. Therefore, the Board's decision to deny benefits was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
Analysis:
This decision significantly narrows the definition of 'misconduct' for the purpose of denying unemployment benefits in Illinois. By emphasizing the 'deliberate and willful' standard, the court makes it more difficult for employers to disqualify former employees based on performance-related issues. The ruling establishes a clear distinction between an employee's inability or negligence and intentional rule-breaking, thereby protecting benefits for those fired for incompetence rather than insubordination. This precedent requires administrative bodies to make specific findings of intent and willfulness, rather than relying on general findings of poor performance or disregard for employer expectations.
Unlock the full brief for Siler v. Department of Employment Security