you your honor raghav are for the intel and can beverage please the court this case has significant public policy implications acting both an employer's responsibility to provide an employee with notice of its reason the rules and employment expectations as well as an employer's burden to present evidence in unemployment compensation proceeding or the illinois department of employment period if allowed to stand this honor your honors this decision will undermine the player's ability to rely upon previously documented misconduct in making employment terminations decisions will require employers after providing a final written warning to provide further additional written warnings  errors in this case your owners each of which warrants reversal st the review board clearly erred in failing to consider the entire record of mislead document in this conduct in determining whether she engaged in this conduct under  the nd the review board clearly erred by stating that ken's beverages required to provide additional written warnings to miss wood even after it she had received multiple prior warning putting a final written warning for her terminations and rd the review board clearly erred in faulting ken beverage for failing to call additional witnesses with personal knowledge of the circumstances relating to her terminations even though the record included two fact witnesses with direct personal knowledge of th nation and rude or disrespectful conduct towards coworkers and managers including swearing at coworkers one of those violations included a three day suspension for insubordination and july th two thousand and seventeen this would receive a final written warning for unprofessional behavior towards another coworker when you say documented this to go are talking about the ones that were written up reports that she signed ye on those are those pandas acknowledgments of the facts contained in those documents yes your so they say your argument is evidence from a never then standpoint they would stand by themselves my question is and it seems like this case for us on what's the role that the prior non credibility question documentation has to play because it seems like the final notice you you know if you do one more thing or a couple more things then you're going to be fired and now the question is board was looking at that that point in time going ahead as to whether those  credible incidents i don't i don't think there was any dispute in the record that the prior warning to have been given i don't think there is a need a student a record that there was a final and she was not a final written warning the so it seems like the case rests or falls primarily upon whether those are believe a bull incidents you're you're saying the prior instances are believable that wh no you've already said that they were as follows in council may or may not agree with that in this argument but let's say that they're not there's no credibility determination made their acknowledged they're basically stipulated facts so to speak but now we've got a final notice in the final notices for their behavior with this major will not be tolerated and so now it seems mean whether terminations was appropriate or not is a determination of what took place from july th on i think that's fair your honor and i think that's where the rub is because the administrators law judge in considering the evidence made the can determination that there had been that that that ms would had been warned orally by management about her ongoing disrespectful disruptive conduct and he also made the determination that in one particular incident decision relating to complaints by other employees but he did indicate that that particular incident was was sufficient particularly given her prior warning and given the  fact that she had been counsel that the review board in making their decision did not consider and all any of the prior written warning that had been  did not consider at all or even acknowledged that she was on a final written warning did not consider or in any way referenced the fact that there were ongoing counseling with her oral counseling with her and did not consider or even reference the interaction with mr mullins that he testified to at the veil is a fine to be credible of making that that inappropriate comment directly to him and then let's start looking at the board the board is the one that makes the credibility findings that are binding right on review and that after july th the havior was disputed by the employer in face of the employer's testimony reborn and mullen about two incidents with they would be arguably competent to testify to and could not be thrown out it's fair to say that the status right at that point i believe that's correct i believe that that my point simply is that the responsibility of the review board is considered the record as a whole and the review board did not make a determination that that that that that  that's bullshit comment did not happen the review board did not make a determination with respect to the prior written warnings the review board simply said oh you should have called more witness it but but but there wasn't a ruling one way or the other about the issues that the that the administrative law judge very directly and discreetly responded or addressed and i would argue that that the record evidence and that's what that's what's troublesome in this case the review board also said very specifically that there was an expectation that she should have received additional written warning i mean that in support of behavior but he did not intend for any is documentary evidence in the form of written warnings or just an action this in reaction would have confirmed the event really took place this is not an onerous burden to place on the employer most employers document bad behavior that's the point they create they criticized k b r for not documenting bad behavior when they went when she was on a final written warning that followed five prior written warning so they just simply there didn't review the record or just didn't anyway knowledge that in fact that was exactly what she what she had this is your real concern for future cases is that you have an employer i think that's what you're saying if an employer sends or gives the employer a final written notice that  board is not going back and looking at prior documented undisputed evidence but that they're focusing only from that point forward what happened is that what you're trying to say i think that's true i mean if if the employee had challenged the prior written warnings and there may have been an issue there but there was no challenge of that there was no dispute that she was on a final written warning there was no dispute that the next incident could lead to determination  terminations and so i think my concern my concerns are the that this decision puts a lot what's new onerous burdens on employers that have not been and that are inconsistent with what this court and the supreme court have held in prior cases the the alternate staffing case says that once employees receive a series of warnings if there's another incident even if even if it's excusable that could be the basis for misconduct and can disqualify can disqualify them from receiving benefits we're also very troubled your honour's about the what i think is perhaps the most significant public policy perspective for this case which is the fact that the review board specifically criticized for not calling more witnesses the public policy of the state favors the simplicity and the efficiency of administrative procedures the department of employment security in particular is under a huge amount of pressure to valuate a large number of benefit claims as efficiently as possible judge the algerians at the beginning respect to the same facts if there's nothing in the act that says no you have to call more witnesses you have to create new additional documents you have to engage in this further progressive disciplinary process at some point boys on the final written warning there's another incident that occurs that's the end and to put that type of burden on the boy or that's trying to run its business it's trying to continue to productively  provide provide work in the state two it's really a troublesome burden to suggest that employers have to provide have to call cumulative witnesses to provide cumulative evidence in order to to  mr rush there's no reason to reverse the board's findings or its ultimate decision in this case now on administrative review before this court it's a very simple case the board's factual determinations must stand as long as there is some evidence to support here there was evidence on both sides it was disputed in particular it was disputed as to whether this would engage in any misconduct in the last five or six months of her employment which is what ken's beveridge claims it this court does not mean weigh the evidence this court does not reevaluated credibility determinations and those credibility determinations may be i so after the board reviews the entire record if some evidence supports the board's decision there's no basis to reweigh or evaluate the other side's evidence attempts to weigh how those pieces of evidence weigh against each other that was the province of the fact finder and so there's no there's no basis to reverse the board's decision in particular i want to emphasize something about what is disputed or undisputed here justice holdridge you brought up the past warnings dating from nine months prior to many years prior they don't actually on their face represent an acknowledgement of the truth of anything if you look at the bottom of the form for instance on page ninety six of the common law record it says i acknowledge that i have received this form so that they they don't on their face represent any kind of undisputed facts that the board was was required to find were true but in any event the issue in this case is whether ms wood was discharged for committing misconduct gens beverage claims that it did discharge her for engaging in a pattern of misconduct during the last five or six months of her employment that evidence is disputed the board was not persuaded but so you are saying that it is the timeframe from why seven forward that was the client pattern of misconduct and there was a failure to establish that pattern by  behavior from november two thousand and seventeen forward and that that was the basis for discharging her i don't think it met i don't think it matters a whole lot for the purposes of administrative review whether that timeframe was the pride of five or six months or the prior nine months looked at in either way there's evidence on the record looking at the entire record which the board did and said it did in its decision looking at the entire record there is evidence supporting the board's factual findings in its ultimate decision so so you're you're saying that  the characterization that the prior documents signed by words was not a stipulation as to the facts the occurrence whether happened or not but just that she had received a complaint so to speak or is a documentation of a complaint by the employer regarding her behavior right yes your honor that that is what we're saying and i say that simply based on the text of the form itself by the way jens beverage has has never claimed that those facts were established as an undisputed matter so i'm looking at  one of these various mostly nears old forms that can't ridge submitted i'm looking at one of them right now if ken's beverage had brought this up in either of these briefs i would have taken a closer look at all of the forms but i'm looking at one documents needed to actually be authentic cadence so to speak through other evidence or testimony or for them to have to have the way this misconduct had occurred no i wouldn't i wouldn't say no that's our position your honor it may very well be that these documents could be admissible as business records but what i am saying is that they address facts that happened at least nine months prior to ms wood being fired most of them address facts that are years old and c their claim i add or is there any time that you limitations on a pattern of misconduct no there's there's definitely no time statute of limitations on a pattern of misconduct rather it's the province of the fact finder the board to look at the entire record and resolve disputes and if there is disputed evidence as there was here then when the board makes its determination there's no basis to reverse their own administrative review ok so our standard or here you're saying is manifest weigh the evidence with the well worn statement if there's anything in the record that would support the board's decision we have to pay when it comes to the facts the standard of review is manifest would have a difference and if there is some evidence in the record to support the board's factual findings that she cannot be reversed clearly erroneous comes into play or clear error when the board applies the facts to a legal standard and makes a determination so the ultimate question of whether ms wood was discharged for misconduct that's a determination that applies factual findings to a legal standard it's subject to review for clear error but that has to be that has to be looked at with regard pardon me that has to be looked at with regard to what what were the board's factual findings what were its credibility determinations whether x wants it or implicit and by the way there's there's not legal authority requiring the boards to address every single claim explicitly or to address that reasonable piece of evidence explicitly counsel here is talking about the value of vision see in these proceedings but seems to be arguing without any legal authority whatsoever for a new standard that requires the board to address every single little item and that's that's simply not how these decisions are review so when we start with what the board's factual findings are and the board here was not persuaded by ken's beverages evidence that of any pattern of misconduct let alone a single incident of misconduct in his words final five or six months of employment then then we get a clear review for the question of whether she was discharged for committing misconduct well if the factual if the factual findings are skewed me are that ken's beverages evidence was not persuasive then you can't have a clear error in that ultimate determination that rush question yes you're one we've talked about the standard of review for our court and you know we've talked about how we have to relate to the decision of the board what is that there kens beverage have to show at the level of hearing before the a l j for example does it have to show it believed that there was a pattern of misconduct and that there is some evidence in the record from which one could legally term and that was a reasonable finding or did they have to ken's beverage had to prove more than just its subjective state of mind especially where as here there was a hearsay objection ken's beverage had to offer some competent evidence to support its fundamental claim that ms would in gauged in misconduct during her final five or six months of employment and that that was the reason it fired her not some other reason because people you know sometimes can be fired for other reasons even if they may have transgressed in some way and it's limited to five or six months because of what ms rep heard said in that  what's it called employee counseling for in july why yes can't accept right why is it limited to five or six months that was the claim is what committed nine months or hears in the past you know the board could look at that too and the board did look at those earlier warnings it looked at the entire record and commented on the one from july of the prior year i think i think counsel stated a few minutes ago that the board did not acknowledge any of these earlier warnings and on the face of the board's decision that's not accurate so as a matter  it's theoretically possible to look at these things but the board has the facts winder has to look at all the evidence and it's understandable if the board is not persuaded that ms wood was fired for things that she did nine months or years earlier and then when ken's beveridge says that there was a pattern of misconduct during the course of the last five or six months and that that's what she was fired for and then there's little or no competent evidence to show that that actually occurred that's why the board said it was not very persuade still confused by this mr rush that we're kind of never really answering the question here are you not most legal proceedings bound by four corners of your complaint and so what are the four corners of the complaint that the employer you said is a it from your perspective the pattern of misconduct after july th or is it prior to not a complaint that sets the four corners of what's in dispute but the board as fact finder looks at the entire record and has to make an ultimate decision was ms wood discharged for misconduct and there's nothing inappropriate about the board evaluating that question in the light of ten beverages only expressly stated claims which is ms wood was discharged for engaging in a pattern of misconduct  in the final five or six months of her employment i'd also like to add that well that's kind of a as you know the four corners of the claim they're setting a barrier over the pattern misconduct during the five or six months the board did not set a boundary on that as a matter of law rather than the board evaluated the entire record and fairly considered what  with respect to the standard review the manifest when the evidence applies to the factual finding a clear error standard what applies to the mix questions of fact and law and i read the board decision you board decision i see one paragraph of factual finding everything else is goes to way that the evidence and legal analysis it's not there not there is not factual  which again goes back to our greater concern with respect to the issue of whether or not she was under private use prior written warnings that they were they were clearly in evidence because they're a part of the administrative record one of the elements one of the burdens of the employer is to show that the employee was on notice of the employer's recently reasonable expectation those warnings consistently expectation and so i think that that that that again when we look at the entire record when we look at that at the end all of it it just seems apparent that the review board just simply didn't do that they didn't spend the time to really understand the history of misconduct that the understanding of the i mean the fact that they say well she should mr millen should have written are up again this this court is held there's no duty to there's no requirement of progressive discipline in the state of illinois the issue is did the employee have notice and when they terminated for a reason upon which was which was a violation of a rule or an expectation of the employer that is exactly what happened here but there's a mind implicitly that that was not credible mullins and reborn testimony was not credible because it was it was responded to by woods herself it's difficult i think it would be speculative to say that because we don't know because they simply didn't address it that's what that's what's problematic again you've got eleven paragraph three lines where there's an actual conversation actual factual findings and what it specifically says is the claim that was discharged because remediate supervisor and her subordinates complained givers time to the employer about her behavior and management that that's what it says after that everything is about the employer's failure to provide for a written warning fair to call additional witnesses no discussion of the actual substantive evidence or the analysis of the the administrative law judge or or the evidence presented at the at the  he made the comment that if he had been on the board of review he was certain that he would have reached a different conclusion he was reluctant to overturn that decision and yet he  acknowledged that it was evident from the record that that was the only reasonable conclusion was that she was that she was discharged for misconduct and i think what's what and that's what's