Opinion
Case No. 20010540-CA.
Filed May 16, 2002. (Not For Official Publication)
Original Proceeding in this Court.
Mark L. Shurtleff, John S. McAllister, and D. Michael Carter, Salt Lake City, for Petitioner.
H. Craig Bunker and Virginia S. Smith, Salt Lake City, for Respondent.
Before Judges JACKSON, DAVIS, and GREENWOOD.
MEMORANDUM DECISION
Petitioner Dixie State College seeks judicial review of a decision of the Workforce Appeals Board that awarded unemployment insurance benefits to Janette Fronk (Claimant). We affirm.
Dixie raises several challenges to the Board's action, including the following: 1) the agency erroneously interpreted or applied the law; 2) the agency action is not supported by substantial evidence when viewed in light of the whole record; and 3) the agency action is arbitrary or capricious. Dixie cites to Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(d), (g), (h)(iv) (1997). Dixie also argues that the Board's decision is "beyond its authority" and goes beyond "its statutory discretion." These arguments appear to be raised under Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(h)(i) (allowing relief where there has been "an abuse of the discretion delegated to the agency by statute").
Because the agency has been granted considerable discretion in applying the equity and good conscience standard, we do not apply a correction of error standard of review or review this appeal under section 63-46b-16(4)(d). See King v. Industrial Comm'n, 850 P.2d 1281, 1286 (Utah Ct.App. 1993). Dixie does not adequately brief its challenge to the Board's findings, see Utah R. App. P. 24(a)(9), and at oral argument, Dixie conceded that it was not challenging the Board's findings, but only the Board's conclusion that Claimant was entitled to benefits under the equity and good conscience standard. Thus, we address only Dixie's claim that the Board abused its discretion or acted arbitrarily or capriciously in awarding unemployment insurance benefits to Claimant. We review these claims under Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16(4)(h)(i), (iv), and apply a reasonableness standard of review. See Anderson v. Public Serv. Comm'n, 839 P.2d 822, 824 (Utah 1992) (stating claims brought under subsection (4)(h)(iv) are reviewed for reasonableness); King, 850 P.2d at 1286 (applying reasonableness and rationality standard of review to claims brought under subsection (4)(h)(i)).
Pursuant to the Employment Security Act, the Board is permitted to determine whether a claimant's ineligibility for unemployment benefits is "contrary to equity and good conscience." Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-405(1)(b) (2001). In making a determination of whether a denial of benefits would be contrary to equity and good conscience, the Board shall consider "the reasonableness of the claimant's actions" and if there remains "a genuine continuing attachment to the labor market."Id. § 35A-4-405(1)(c); see also Utah Admin. Code R994-405-103 (setting forth elements required to show equity and good conscience: decision is made in cooperation with employer, claimant acted reasonably, and claimant demonstrated continuing attachment to labor market). This court has recognized that section 35A-4-405 grants the Board a degree of discretion when considering the reasonableness of the claimant's actions and the continuing attachment to the labor market when applying the equity and good conscience standard. See Robinson v. Department of Employment Sec., 827 P.2d 250, 254 (Utah Ct.App. 1992).
We cite the most recent version of the statute for convenience. The 2000 amendment has no bearing on the issues before us.
The Utah Administrative Procedures Act (UAPA) authorizes this court to grant relief if, based upon the agency's record, a petitioner has been substantially prejudiced. See Utah Code Ann. § 63-46b-16 (1997). Under the UAPA, an agency is given deference "on the basis of an explicit or implicit grant of discretion contained in the governing statute."Morton Int'l, Inc. v. Tax Comm'n, 814 P.2d 581, 588 (Utah 1991). If such discretion exists, "the agency's action `should be affirmed if its decision is reasonable and rational.'" Bhatia v. Department of Employment Sec., 834 P.2d 574, 577 (Utah Ct.App. 1992) (quotingDepartment of the Air Force v. Swider, 824 P.2d 448, 451 (Utah Ct.App. 1991)); see also Robinson, 827 P.2d at 255.
The Board argues that we should use an abuse of discretion standard of review. However, we need not resolve this issue because whether we use an abuse of discretion or a reasonable and rational standard, we would still affirm the Board's award of benefits.
In applying the reasonable and rational standard, this court will not engage in a "free-wheeling judicial foray into the record" and impose a decision based on this court's view of "equity and good conscience."Pritcher v. Department of Employment Sec., 752 P.2d 917, 919 (Utah Ct.App. 1988). In other words, "this court will not substitute its judgment as between two reasonably conflicting views, even though we may have come to a different conclusion had the case come before us for de novo review." Grace Drilling Co. v. Board of Review, 776 P.2d 63, 68 (Utah Ct.App. 1989).
Therefore, after a consideration of the totality of Claimant's circumstances and the underlying purpose of the Act, we cannot say that the Board's decision to award benefits was unreasonable. Thus, the award of unemployment insurance benefits to Claimant is affirmed.
The Employment Security Act of the Utah Code was enacted in recognition that "[e]conomic insecurity due to unemployment is a serious menace to the health, morals, and welfare of the people of [the state of Utah]." Utah Code Ann. § 35A-4-102 (2001). Thus, the legislature has determined that unemployment is an area of "general interest and concern" and that the security of the people requires protection against "this greatest hazard of our economic life." Id. As a result, the legislature has determined that setting aside reserves for the benefit of the unemployed supports the public good. See id.
WE CONCUR: Norman H. Jackson, Presiding Judge, and Pamela T. Greenwood, Judge.