Wise v. The Department of Employment Security
2015 IL App (5th) 130306 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
An employee's single act of insubordination constitutes 'misconduct' sufficient to deny unemployment benefits if it involves a refusal to follow a reasonable, safety-related instruction, as this conduct creates a realistic potential for harm to the employer. The harm required by the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act includes potential harm, not just actual harm.
Facts:
- Clara E. Wise was employed by Casino Queen as a cook and buffet station attendant.
- On November 19, 2011, Wise's supervisor, Betty Stanek, discovered that the coleslaw and tuna salad at Wise's station were at temperatures too high to be safe for consumption.
- Stanek instructed Wise to get more ice and water to place under the food pans to lower their temperature.
- Wise refused Stanek's instruction, stating that it was not her job, it was 'pantry work,' and she was tired of doing other people's jobs.
- Wise then left her station without getting the ice and water; another employee ultimately performed the task.
- Two days later, Wise met with Casino Queen's employee relations manager, Kim Cushon, admitted the incident occurred, and was subsequently discharged for insubordination.
Procedural Posture:
- Clara E. Wise filed a claim for unemployment benefits with the Illinois Department of Employment Security, which was denied.
- Wise appealed the denial to an administrative hearing referee, who held a hearing and upheld the decision to deny benefits.
- Wise then appealed to the Board of Review of the Department of Employment Security, which affirmed the referee's decision.
- Wise filed a petition for administrative review in the Circuit Court of Madison County.
- The circuit court reversed the Board of Review's decision, finding there was no evidence that Wise's employer was harmed.
- Casino Queen, Inc. and the Department of Employment Security (Defendants-Appellants) appealed the circuit court's judgment 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 single act of refusing a supervisor's direct, safety-related instruction in the presence of other employees constitute 'misconduct' that has harmed the employer under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, thereby disqualifying the employee from receiving unemployment benefits?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Chapman
Yes, an employee's single act of refusing a supervisor's direct, safety-related instruction constitutes harmful misconduct that disqualifies the employee from receiving unemployment benefits. The court distinguished this case, which involved a direct refusal to comply with an instruction, from prior cases involving mere argumentative behavior. The instruction given to Wise was directly related to the safety of Casino Queen's customers, and her refusal created a realistic potential for serious harm, such as customers becoming ill from consuming food kept at unsafe temperatures. The statutory requirement of 'harm' to the employer encompasses potential harm, not only actual harm; it was 'merely fortuitous' that another employee performed the task and no customers were sickened. Furthermore, the insubordination occurred in front of other employees, which had the potential to harm the employer by undermining the supervisor's authority and demonstrating that safety instructions could be disregarded.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the principle that 'potential harm' is sufficient to satisfy the harm element for a finding of 'misconduct' under the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act. It clarifies that a single act of insubordination, if it relates to a critical function like customer safety, is not a mere 'flurry of temper' but rises to the level of disqualifying misconduct. The ruling distinguishes between simple workplace arguments and direct refusals of reasonable orders, giving employers a stronger legal basis to challenge unemployment claims based on insubordination involving safety protocols. This precedent will likely make it more difficult for employees discharged for refusing safety-related instructions to successfully claim unemployment benefits.
