Opinion
No. 4-218 / 03-1198
April 14, 2004.
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Woodbury County, Jeffrey A. Neary, Judge.
Petitioner appeals from the district court's decision on judicial review affirming the Employment Appeal Board's finding claimant was eligible for unemployment benefits. AFFIRMED.
Rene Lapierre of Klass, Stoik, Mugan, Villone, Phillips, Orzechoswski, Clausen Lapierre, L.L.P., Sioux City, for appellant.
Dennis McElwain of Smith McElwain, Sioux City, and Richard Ramsey, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., and Vaitheswaran and Eisenhauer, JJ.
Woodbury County ("County") appeals from the district court's decision on judicial review affirming the Employment Appeal Board's finding claimant Candelario Jimenez was eligible for unemployment benefits. The County contends the court erred in concluding Jimenez's conduct did not constitute misconduct. We review for errors at law. Eaton v. Employment Appeal Bd., 602 N.W.2d 553, 554 (Iowa 1999).
Jimenez was hired by the County in October 1992 as a full-time custodian. The position required him to lift forty pounds. During his employment with the County, Jimenez received three written warnings regarding his failure to follow instructions in the performance of his job duties. These warnings were issued in February and March of 2002.
Jimenez suffered a work injury on October 17, 2002. After receiving medical treatment, Jimenez was discharged with work restrictions limiting his lifting to ten pounds or less. Jimenez returned to work without restrictions on October 21. On that date, he was asked to push a cart containing trash. Jimenez believed the trash, which contained several bags of discarded textbooks, was too heavy and refused. As a result, he was terminated on October 25 for failing to perform his job duties as directed.
Jimenez filed for unemployment benefits. He was initially found ineligible for benefits due to misconduct. Jimenez appealed and an administrative law judge determined the County failed to establish misconduct. The County then appealed to the Employment Appeal Board, which unanimously affirmed the administrative law judge's decision. The County then filed a petition for judicial review, alleging the Employment Appeal Board's decision was not supported by substantial evidence. The district court affirmed.
The Employment Appeal Board's decision is binding if substantial evidence supports the decision and it is not based upon an incorrect conclusion of law. Id. "Evidence is substantial when a reasonable mind would accept it as adequate to reach the same findings." Id. The question is therefore not whether the evidence might support a different conclusion, but whether the evidence supports the findings actually made. St. Luke's Hosp. v. Gray, 604 N.W.2d 646, 649 (Iowa 2000).
Iowa Code section 96.5(2) (2001) provides that an employee discharged for misconduct is disqualified for unemployment benefits. Iowa Administrative Code rule 871-24.32(1)(a) defines misconduct:
Misconduct is defined as a deliberate act or omission by a worker which constitutes a material breach of the duties and obligations arising out of such worker's contract of employment. Misconduct as the term is used in the disqualification provision as being limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interest as is found in deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of employees, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer. On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
An employer has the burden of proving a claimant is disqualified for benefits because of misconduct. Henecke v. Iowa Div. of Job Serv., 533 N.W.2d 573, 575 (Iowa Ct.App. 1995).
Misconduct must be substantial in nature to support a disqualification from unemployment benefits. Gimbel v. Employment Appeal Bd., 489 N.W.2d 36, 39 (Iowa Ct. App. 1992). The focus is on deliberate, intentional, or culpable acts by the employee. Id. An employee's failure to perform a specific task may not constitute misconduct if such failure is in good faith or for good cause. Woods v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 327 N.W.2d 768, 771 (Iowa 1982).
Jimenez failed to perform his job duties as directed. However, substantial evidence supports the Appeal Board's conclusion this failure was due to his good faith belief he could not do so without injury. The record reveals Jimenez has a history of back problems related to lifting trash bags or pushing trash carts of which the County was aware. Jimenez was given a permanent restriction in 2000 from carrying ten pounds for one hundred feet. Substantial evidence supports the findings that Jimenez's refusal to push a cart he believed was too heavy, just days after suffering a back injury at work, is not misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm.AFFIRMED.