Opinion
NO. 2019-CA-000747-MR
02-28-2020
KRYSTAL SIMS APPELLANT v. KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION AND SISTER SCHUBERTS HOMEMADE ROLLS, INC. APPELLEES
BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Matthew J. Baker Bowling Green, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION: Joshua R. Hurley Frankfort, Kentucky NO BRIEF FILED FOR SISTER SCHUBERTS HOMEMADE ROLLS, INC.
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED APPEAL FROM HART CIRCUIT COURT
HONORABLE CHARLES C. SIMMS, III, JUDGE
ACTION NO. 18-CI-00087 OPINION
AFFIRMING
** ** ** ** **
BEFORE: CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE; CALDWELL AND COMBS, JUDGES. CLAYTON, CHIEF JUDGE: Krystal Sims appeals the April 2, 2019, Hart Circuit Court order affirming the decision of the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission (the Commission), determining she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits due to misconduct. After review, we affirm.
BACKGROUND
Sims began working for Sister Schuberts Homemade Rolls, Inc., in 2014. Her employment was terminated in October 2017. During her three years of employment at Sister Schuberts, Sims had several notations in her personnel file regarding disciplinary issues. Those relevant to the case sub judice occurred in January and September of 2017.
In January, Sims received a final written warning after arguing with a coworker in front of her manager. Eight months later, in September, Sims was asked to meet with Alan Trulock, her direct supervisor, and Shirley Pettit, the human resources manager, regarding an unauthorized break. Mr. Trulock and Ms. Pettit described Sims's behavior during the meeting as hostile. Additionally, Sims was asked several times to calm down and did not. As a result, she was placed on leave until her termination in October.
After termination, Sims applied for unemployment benefits. The initial determination was that Sims qualified. Sister Schuberts appealed the first determination to an administrative referee who, after a telephonic hearing, affirmed the decision. Sister Schuberts then appealed the referee's decision to the Commission, pursuant to Kentucky Revised Statute (KRS) 341.430 and 787 Kentucky Administrative Regulation (KAR) 1:110, Section 1(1)(a).
After reviewing the record, the Commission disagreed with the referee's decision. The Commission found Sims's actions constituted misconduct; therefore, she was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Sims appealed the Commission's order reversing the referee's decision to the Hart Circuit Court under KRS 341.450. The circuit court affirmed the Commission's order. This appeal followed.
ANALYSIS
When reviewing decisions of the Commission, the Kentucky Supreme Court has stated:
Judicial review of a decision of [the Commission] is governed by the general rule applicable to administrative actions. If the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence of probative value, then they must be accepted as binding and it must then be determined whether or not the administrative agency has applied the correct rule of law to the facts so found. Substantial evidence has been defined as evidence which has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people. If there is substantial evidence in the record to support an agency's findings, the findings will be upheld, even though there may be conflicting evidence in the record. An agency's findings are clearly erroneous if arbitrary or unsupported by substantial evidence in the record. If the reviewing court concludes the rule of law was correctly applied to facts supported by substantial evidence, the final order of the agency must be affirmed.Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Com'n v. Cecil, 381 S.W.3d 238, 245-46 (Ky. 2012) (citations and internal quotation marks omitted).
First, we look to whether the Commission's findings were clearly erroneous. The Commission found Sister Schuberts' policy prohibits behaviors such as disruptions in the workplace, and the result of such behavior is an "automatic final warning on the first offense and an automatic discharge on the second offense." These policies were written in the employee handbook, which Sims acknowledged having access to and reviewing. The Commission further found,
[Sims] received a final warning on January 24, 2017, after a disagreement with a co-worker. . . . Both employees were issued a final warning for their workplace disagreement, even though [Sims] did not cuss, yell, or otherwise engage in the argument. . . .
On September 29, 2017, Mr. Trulock reported to human resources that [Sims] had taken an unauthorized break. Shirley Pettit, human resources manager, met with Mr. Trulock and [Sims] concerning the incident. [Sims] told Ms. Pettit that Mr. Trulock was just trying to get her into trouble and that he did not have to bring this issue to human resources. [Sims] was upset and was yelling. Ms. Pettit instructed [Sims] to calm down, but [Sims] continued to yell. Ms. Pettit placed [Sims] on administrative leave on September 29, 2017, for refusing to calm down. [Sims] was not permitted to return to work through the period of her suspension through October 9, 2017.
Both incidents were reported in Sims's employment file and there was testimony from witnesses about both disciplinary issues. As for the September incident, which was the cause for Sims's termination, Ms. Pettit and Mr. Trulock testified they met with Sims to discuss her unauthorized break. They stated Sims began yelling and accusing Mr. Trulock of attempting to get her in trouble. They also said Sims was asked several times to calm down and did not. Sims testified she was merely emotional. She said her behavior that day was common practice and she did not understand why human resources became involved. However, she did not provide any witness testimony to corroborate her statement. The Commission found Ms. Pettit and Mr. Trulock's testimony to be more credible.
The above shows the Commission's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Therefore, the findings of fact are not clearly erroneous, and Kentucky law requires these findings be upheld, "even though there may be conflicting evidence in the record." Cecil, 381 S.W.3d at 246. Sims's assertion that the testimony of Mr. Trulock and Ms. Pettit is inaccurate is insufficient to disturb the Commission's findings.
Next, we turn to whether the Commission correctly applied the law to its findings of fact. Sims alleges the Commission erred because: 1) unemployment laws are remedial, which means the statutes should be broadly construed in favor of the employee, and 2) her actions did not constitute misconduct as defined by Kentucky law. We will address each argument in turn.
Sims begins by arguing KRS 341.370 should have been liberally construed by the Commission in her favor because the unemployment statutes are remedial. Said argument is without merit. "Where the words of the statute are clear and unambiguous and express the legislative intent, there is no room for construction or interpretation and the statute must be given its effect as written. An unambiguous statute must be applied without resort to any outside aids." Lincoln County Fiscal Court v. Department of Public Advocacy Com. of Ky., 794 S.W.2d 162, 163 (Ky. 1990) (citations omitted). KRS 341.370(1)(b) states, "[a] worker shall be disqualified from receiving benefits for the duration of any period of unemployment with respect to which . . . [she] has been discharged for misconduct . . . connected with [her] most recent work[.]" Furthermore,
(6) "Discharge for misconduct" as used in this section shall include but not be limited to, separation initiated by an employer for falsification of an employment application to obtain employment through subterfuge; knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer; unsatisfactory attendance if the worker cannot show good cause for absences or tardiness; damaging the employer's property through gross negligence; refusing to obey reasonable instructions; reporting to work under the influence of alcohol or drugs or consuming alcohol or drugs on employer's premises during working hours; conduct endangering safety of self or co-workers; and incarceration in jail following conviction of a misdemeanor or felony by a court of competent jurisdiction, which results in missing at least five (5) days work.The statute is clear: if any of the above definitions of misconduct applies then the employee is disqualified from receiving benefits. Here, the Commission correctly reviewed the statute and applied it to the findings. Despite Sims's urging us to do so, we may not deviate from the statute in her favor.
It is neither the duty nor the prerogative of the judiciary to breathe into the statute that which the Legislature has not put there. The humane spirit of the statute does not warrant its extension beyond its legitimate scope.Faust v. Commonwealth, 142 S.W.3d 89, 95 (Ky. 2004) (quoting Gateway Const. Co. v. Wallbaum, 356 S.W.2d 247, 248-49 (Ky. 1962)).
Finally, Sims suggests that her actions were not misconduct because there was no finding her actions were willful or wanton, or that she acted in bad faith. Such a finding is not required. In Cecil, the Supreme Court explicitly held "that a willful or wanton, or bad faith, finding, is not an additional requirement when the employee is discharged for conduct specifically identified in KRS 341.370(6)." 381 S.W.3d at 247. Here, the Commission determined Sims refused to follow the reasonable instructions of her supervisors and she knowingly violated a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of her employer. This conduct is specifically identified in KRS 341.370(6). As a result, the Commission did not err in its application of the law to this case.
CONCLUSION
For the aforementioned reasons, we affirm the decision of the Hart Circuit Court which affirmed the Commission's denial of benefits.
ALL CONCUR. BRIEFS FOR APPELLANT: Matthew J. Baker
Bowling Green, Kentucky BRIEF FOR APPELLEE
KENTUCKY UNEMPLOYMENT
INSURANCE COMMISSION: Joshua R. Hurley
Frankfort, Kentucky NO BRIEF FILED FOR SISTER
SCHUBERTS HOMEMADE ROLLS,
INC.