Title: ASPEN RIDGE LAW OFFICES, P.C. V. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION; and GENEVA A. BREWER

State: wyoming

Issuer: Wyoming Supreme Court

Document:

ASPEN RIDGE LAW OFFICES, P.C. V. WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION; and GENEVA A. BREWER2006 WY 129143 P.3d 911Case Number: 06-13Decided: 10/13/2006
OCTOBER 
TERM, A.D. 2006

 
 
ASPEN RIDGE LAW OFFICES, 
P.C.,

 
 
Appellant

(Petitioner),

 
 
v.

 
 
WYOMING DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT, 
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION; and GENEVA A. BREWER,

 
 
Appellees

(Respondents).

 
 
Appeal from the 
DistrictCourtofLaramieCounty

The Honorable Peter G. 
Arnold, Judge

 
 
Representing Appellant:

Galen Woelk, of Aron & Hennig, Laramie, Wyoming.

 
 
Representing Appellees:

William L. Weaver, Senior Assistant Attorney 
General.

                        

                        
            

Before 
VOIGT, C.J., and GOLDEN, HILL*, KITE, and BURKE, 
JJ.

 
 
* Chief 
Justice at time of expedited conference.

 
 
BURKE, 
Justice.

 
 
[¶1]      Aspen Ridge Law 
Offices, P.C. ("Aspen Ridge") challenges an award of unemployment insurance 
benefits to its former employee, Geneva Brewer.  We affirm.

 
 

ISSUES

 
 
[¶2]      Aspen Ridge 
presents three issues for review:  

 
 

I.                     
Whether the Commission's 
refusal to allow Employer to present evidence of Brewer's workplace misconduct 
was arbitrary and capricious?

 
 

II.                   
Whether the Commission's 
conclusions were supported by substantial evidence?

 
 

III.                  
Whether the Commission 
failed to provide Employer with a fair and impartial 
hearing?

 
 
FACTS

 
 
[¶3]      Geneva Brewer was 
employed as a legal secretary by Aspen Ridge.  Sue Davidson is the principal 
shareholder of Aspen Ridge.  On 
September 22, 2004, Ms. Davidson terminated Ms. Brewer's employment.  The next day, Ms. Brewer applied for 
unemployment insurance benefits.  
Aspen Ridge contested the application claiming Ms. Brewer was discharged 
for misconduct because:  (1) Ms. 
Brewer was instructed to prepare an affidavit in a fee dispute case and failed 
to do so; and (2) subsequent to Ms. Brewer's discharge, Ms. Davidson learned 
that Ms. Brewer was spearheading a conspiracy to have all employees resign at 
the same time.1   

[¶4]      A deputy for the 
Unemployment Insurance Division awarded benefits finding that Ms. Brewer's acts, 
or lack thereof, were isolated incidents of poor judgment or ordinary negligence 
and did not constitute an intentional disregard for the employer's 
interests.  Aspen Ridge appealed and 
requested a hearing.    
 

 
 
[¶5]      A contested case 
hearing was held on January 19, 2005.  
Ms. Davidson testified that she terminated Ms. Brewer's employment 
because the affidavit she requested in July was still not completed in 
September.  She testified as 
follows:

 
 
[EXAMINER]: . . . Exactly what was she required to 
do?

 
 
[MS. 
DAVIDSON]:    She was 
requested to put together after she had done an extensive file review of the 
[fee dispute file], in addition to relevant court files, to do an affidavit of 
recollection responsive to [the filed fee dispute].

[EXAMINER]: All right.  Did . . . Ms. Brewer tell you why . . . 
she wouldn't, hadn't completed that assignment?

 
 
[MS. 
DAVIDSON]:    She had 
forgotten.  . . . [T]he July time 
frame ended with the day before her scheduled absence. . . . Genny, is that 
done?  This is the deadline.  No it's not done.  She was obviously harried that day.  It was obvious to me that she wanted to 
get out of the office.  I told her 
it had to be completed.  She had one 
of two choices that day.  One was to 
stay and complete the project that night, or she offered to come in first thing 
the next morning and to complete that project, signing the affidavit before one 
of our staff members.  Genny failed 
to do either one of those, after promising that she would come in first thing 
the next day in order to have accomplished that feat.  She was confronted then when she 
returned to the office about completion of that task.  I believe that she returned on a 
Monday.  When I determined several months later, 
much to my dismay and chagrin that it had not been completed, the instruction 
was given to complete that project.  
And so it was a continuation of that instruction from the early July time 
frame to the time period in September.

 
 
(Emphasis 
added.)  Ms. Davidson testified that 
she viewed Ms. Brewer's failure to complete the affidavit as an "act of 
defiance."  Ms. Davidson did not 
testify about her knowledge of the alleged conspiracy.  

 
 
[¶6]      After Ms. 
Davidson testified, Ms. Brewer was called as a witness.  She testified that she was in a hurry to 
leave for vacation and that she forgot to complete the affidavit.  She testified that upon her return from 
vacation, she completed the document and placed it on Ms. Davidson's chair for 
her review.  Ms. Brewer produced 
copies of various drafts of the affidavit, two of which contained Ms. Davidson's 
handwritten revisions.   

 
 
[¶7]      During 
cross-examination of Ms. Brewer, Aspen Ridge attempted to elicit testimony 
concerning the alleged conspiracy.  
The hearing examiner refused the evidence, finding it irrelevant.  Aspen Ridge next called another of its 
employees and, inter alia, inquired 
whether she had discussions with Ms. Brewer concerning quitting her 
employment.  The hearing examiner 
again found Aspen Ridge's inquiry irrelevant and refused to admit the evidence. 

 
 
[¶8]      The hearing 
examiner entered findings of fact, stating in pertinent part: 

 
 

3.                  
Before 
leaving on her vacation, the claimant was instructed to prepare an affidavit 
regarding a fee dispute a client had with the employer's principal 
shareholder.

 
 

4.                  
The 
claimant did not complete the affidavit before going on 
vacation.

 
 

5.                  
On 
August 4, 2004 the claimant completed a first draft of the 
affidavit.

 
 

6.                  
The 
principal shareholder reviewed and edited the affidavit.

 
 

7.                  
On 
August 8, 2004 the claimant completed a second draft of the 
affidavit.

 
 

8.                  
The 
principal shareholder reviewed and edited the affidavit.

 
 

9.                  
On 
August 11, 2004 the claimant completed a third and final draft of the 
affidavit.

 
 

10.             
On 
September 22, 2004 the employer's principal shareholder met with the 
claimant.

 
 

11.             
The 
principal shareholder and the cla[i]mant reviewed some business 
matters.

 
 

12.             
The 
principal shareholder then told the claimant that she, the principal 
shareholder, "could not get past" the claimant's failure to complete the 
affidavit before going on vacation in July 2004.

 
 

13.             
The 
principal shareholder then discharged the claimant from her 
employment.

 
 
Based on 
these findings, the hearing examiner determined that Aspen Ridge "failed to 
demonstrate that [Ms. Brewer's] action[s] in July 2004 caused the employer to 
discharge [her] in September 2004."  
The hearing examiner concluded that Ms. Brewer was not disqualified from 
benefit entitlement for misconduct connected to her work.

 
 
[¶9]      Aspen Ridge 
appealed to the Unemployment Insurance Commission.  The Commission affirmed the decision of 
the hearing officer but modified certain of the factual findings 
stating:

 
 
The 
hearing officer's decision is affirmed.  
The Findings of Fact, except for numbered paragraphs 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8 and 
9; Statement of Law; and Conclusions of the hearing officer are adopted and 
incorporated herein by reference.  
We make the following additional findings of fact and 
conclusions:

 
 
FINDINGS 
OF FACT

 
 

A.                 
Before 
leaving on her vacation, the claimant was instructed to prepare a personal 
affidavit relative to a fee dispute a client had with the employer's principal 
shareholder.

 
 

B.                 
The 
claimant worked on the affidavit on July 27 and 28, 2004; however, she did not 
complete it prior to the close of business on July 28, 
2004.

 
 

C.                
The 
claimant offered to complete the affidavit the next day.

 
 

D.                
That 
offer was acceptable to the principal shareholder.

 
 

E.                 
The 
claimant got involved in preparation for the arrival of a friend and forgot 
about doing the affidavit on July 29, 2004.

 
 

F.                 
Immediately 
upon return from her vacation on August 4, 2004, the claimant finalized her 
affidavit, signed it and had it notarized.

 
 

G.                
The 
principal shareholder reviewed and edited the August 4, 2004 
affidavit.

 
 

H.                 
Based 
upon those edits the claimant redid her affidavit, signed it and had it 
notarized on August 9, 2004.

 
 

I.                     
The 
principal shareholder reviewed and edited the August 9, 2004 
affidavit.

 
 

J.                  
Based 
upon those edits the claimant once again redid her affidavit, signed it and had 
it notarized on August 11, 2004.

 
 
The 
Commission concluded that "claimant's failure to complete the affidavit on July 
29, 2004 was ordinary negligence in an isolated instance."  Aspen Ridge next sought review in the 
district court.  The district court 
also affirmed the award.  This 
appeal followed.

 
 
STANDARD OF 
REVIEW

 
 
[¶10]   We conduct our review of this case 
pursuant to Rule 12 of the Wyoming Rules of Appellate Procedure.  Rule 12.09(a) limits our review to 
matters contained in the Wyoming Administrative Procedure Act, which provides in 
pertinent part:

 
 
(c) To the extent 
necessary to make a decision and when presented, the reviewing court shall 
decide all relevant questions of law, interpret constitutional and statutory 
provisions, and determine the meaning or applicability of the terms of an agency 
action. In making the following determinations, the court shall review the whole 
record or those parts of it cited by a party and due account shall be taken of 
the rule of prejudicial error. The reviewing court shall:

(i) Compel agency action 
unlawfully withheld or unreasonably delayed; and

 
 
(ii) Hold unlawful and 
set aside agency action, findings and conclusions found to 
be:

(A) Arbitrary, 
capricious, an abuse of discretion or otherwise not in accordance with 
law;

(B) Contrary to 
constitutional right, power, privilege or immunity;

(C) In excess of 
statutory jurisdiction, authority or limitations or lacking statutory 
right;

(D) Without 
observance of procedure required by law; or

 
 
(E) Unsupported by 
substantial evidence in a case reviewed on the record of an agency hearing 
provided by statute.

 
 

Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-114(c) 
(LexisNexis 2003).  

 
 
[¶11]   Unemployment benefit cases where 
misconduct is alleged present mixed questions of law and fact.  Hat Six Homes v. State, D.O.E., 6 P.3d 1287, 1291 (Wyo. 2000).  We are not 
bound by the conclusions of the district court.  Id.  Rather, we use the same evidentiary 
materials and the same review standards as the district court, conducting an 
independent inquiry into the matter.  
Id.  We review the case as if it had come 
directly to this Court from the agency.  
Id.  In that regard, we review an agency's 
findings of fact by applying the substantial evidence standard.  Id.  We affirm an agency's conclusions of law 
when they are in accordance with law.  
Id.  Aspen Ridge bears the burden of 
proving that the Commission's decision is not supported by substantial 
evidence.  Roberts v. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 745 P.2d 1355, 1357 (Wyo. 1987).

 
 
DISCUSSION

 
 
[¶12]   Aspen Ridge contends that Ms. 
Brewer is not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits because she was 
discharged for misconduct connected with her work.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 27-3-311(f) (LexisNexis 
2003).2  Aspen Ridge asserts the Commission's 
decision that Ms. Brewer's actions constituted ordinary negligence is 
erroneous.  Aspen Ridge claims the 
hearing officer did not properly consider all of the evidence because she 
excluded evidence of the alleged conspiracy.  As a result, Aspen Ridge contends 
substantial evidence cannot exist to support the decision.  We disagree.

 
 

[¶13]   "Substantial evidence is relevant 
evidence that a reasonable person might accept as adequate to support the 
findings of the agency."  World Mart v. Ditsch, 855 P.2d 1228, 
1232 (Wyo. 
1993).  Relevant evidence is 
"evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of 
consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable 
than it would be without the evidence."  
W.R.E. 401.  See also 
Dept. of Employment v. Roberts 
Const., 841 P.2d 854, 857 (Wyo. 1992).  Irrelevant evidence is 
inadmissible.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-108(a) (LexisNexis 
2003).  Rulings on the admission of 
evidence are within the sound discretion of the agency as the trier of 
fact.  Roush v. Pari-Mutuel Comm'n, 917 P.2d 1133, 1139 (Wyo. 1996).  We will only set aside an 
evidentiary determination if the agency abused its discretion.  Id.  

 
 
[¶14]   The hearing officer refused to 
admit evidence relating to the alleged conspiracy on the basis that it was 
irrelevant.  The issue before the 
hearing officer was whether Ms. Brewer's discharge was for misconduct related to 
her work.  There was no suggestion 
that Ms. Davidson had any knowledge of the alleged conspiracy prior to her 
decision to terminate Ms. Brewer's employment.  Ms. Davidson's unqualified testimony was 
that she had decided to discharge Ms. Brewer because of her failure to complete 
the affidavit. Even if true, the conspiracy played no role in Ms. Davidson's 
decision to discharge Ms. Brewer.  
The excluded evidence lacked relevance, and we perceive no error in the 
hearing officer's ruling.

  

[¶15]   Having determined that evidence of 
the alleged conspiracy was properly excluded, we need only examine the evidence 
before the hearing officer in our search for substantial evidence.  In that regard, we find that substantial 
evidence exists to support the finding that Ms. Brewer did not commit misconduct 
related to her work.  

 
 
[¶16]   Misconduct is defined as 

 
 
an act of an employee 
which indicates a disregard of (1) the employer's interests or (2) the commonly 
accepted duties, obligations and responsibilities of an employee.  This would include carelessness or 
negligence of such degree or recurrence as to reveal willful intent or an 
intentional disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties 
and obligations to his employer.  
Inefficiency or failure in good performance as the result of inability or 
incapacity; ordinary negligence in isolated instances or good faith errors in 
judgment or discretion are not deemed to be misconduct within the meaning of the 
Law.

 
 

Safety Med. Services, 
Inc. v. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, 724 P.2d 468, 472 
(Wyo. 
1986).  Unemployment compensation 
statutes are to be liberally construed in favor of the claimants. Wyoming Dep't of Employment, Div. of Unemployment 
Ins. v. Rissler & McMurry Co., 837 P.2d 686, 690 (Wyo. 1992).  We construe the term misconduct "in a 
manner least favorable to working a forfeiture" because unemployment 
compensation is part of an employee's compensation, not "a gratuity which may be 
withheld frivolously." Id.

 
 
[¶17]   There was conflicting evidence in 
the case.  Ms. Davidson testified 
that the affidavit was never completed and that she viewed the failure to 
complete the affidavit as intentional conduct:

 
 
[MR. WOELK]:           
[W]hat was your . . . final reason, . . . your understanding of why you 
had to terminate Ms. Brewer?

 
 
[MS. DAVIDSON]:    Because Ms. Brewer had not 
accomplished the task that she had been assigned, and that there had been a 
period of delay from the beginning July time frame at least through the date of 
her termination when the issue resurfaced that it had not been 
completed.

 
 
[MR. WOELK]:           
And was it your belief that that was intentional?

 
 
[MS. DAVIDSON]:    Yes.

 
 
On the other hand, Ms. 
Brewer testified that although she was in a hurry to leave for vacation and 
forgot to finish the affidavit at that time, she completed it upon her 
return.  Ms. Brewer produced copies 
of the affidavit, including copies with Ms. Davidson's hand-written revisions. 

 
 
[¶18]   "The agency, as the trier of fact, 
is charged with weighing the evidence and determining the credibility of 
witnesses."  Hat Six Homes, 6 P.3d  at 1292.  The Commission found that Ms. Brewer 
completed the affidavit upon her return and that the final draft of the 
affidavit was notarized on August 11, 2004.  The Commission concluded that her 
failure to complete the affidavit in July was an isolated instance of ordinary 
negligence which did not constitute misconduct.  Aspen Ridge fails to point to evidence 
demonstrating that Ms. Brewer intentionally disregarded her employer's interests 
or that Ms. Brewer's conduct was more than an isolated incident.  The record supports the Commission's 
conclusion that Ms. Brewer's conduct did not rise to a level which would 
disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits, and we will not second 
guess that determination on appeal.  

 
 
[¶19]   Aspen Ridge also claims that the 
agency hearing was not fair or impartial, citing Monahan v. Bd. of Trustees, 486 P.2d 235 
(Wyo. 
1971).  Specifically, Aspen Ridge 
contends that it was unfair for the hearing officer to preclude evidence 
concerning the alleged conspiracy and that the hearing was not conducted in an 
impartial manner because the hearing officer interposed her own objections to 
Aspen Ridge's questions and ruled on those objections.  Aspen Ridge also contends the hearing 
officer impermissibly conducted her own cross-examination of witnesses.   

[¶20]   Although the hearing examiner asked 
occasional questions of witnesses, this was not conducted in such a manner as to 
"take over the examination."  Monahan, 486 P.2d  at 238.  Aspen Ridge was permitted to call all of 
its witnesses, present relevant evidence, and to cross-examine all 
witnesses.  The hearing examiner 
properly excluded irrelevant evidence offered by both Aspen Ridge and Ms. 
Brewer.  See Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 16-3-108(a) 
(stating irrelevant evidence is inadmissible) and Wyo. Stat. Ann. § 
16-3-112(a)(iii), (v) (LexisNexis 2003) (authorizing the hearing officer to 
receive relevant evidence and to regulate the course of the hearing).  Based upon our review of the 
proceedings, we do not find anything to suggest Aspen Ridge was not provided a 
fair and impartial hearing.   

 
 
[¶21]   Affirmed.

 
 
FOOTNOTES

 
 
  1The 
written response filed by Aspen Ridge states in full as 
follows:

 
 
            
Employee was instructed three days prior to her scheduled absence from 
the office to complete and sign an affidavit.  Each day she was reminded to complete 
this task.  As of the last day prior 
to departure she had failed to complete this task.  She was instructed to complete and sign 
the affidavit before she left work for the evening.  Instead she wanted to "come in first 
thing the next morning (a work day, July 29, 2004) to do the work."  On the condition that she would "come in 
first thing the next morning," she was allowed to leave work for the day.  However, she failed to come in as 
instructed and as she promised nor did she call the next day to offer 
justification for her absence.  When 
she was confronted about the matter, she had no excuse except that she 
"forgot."  Employer advised her that 
her failure was classified as an incident of insubordination.  It was hoped that Employee would learn 
from the incident and not engage in similar conduct in the 
future.

 
 
            
Three days before Employee was terminated, she was instructed to complete 
a task.  Each day she was reminded 
the task was not done yet.  As of 
the day of termination, the task had not been completed and, in her words, had 
"barely been started."  This was 
another incident of insubordination.  
She said she would do the task the next day.  She was told that it no longer mattered 
whether she did the task or not.  
She was terminated on the spot, September [22], 
2004.

 
 
            
Subsequent to terminating Employee, Employer learned Employee had been 
agitating the staff to quit Employer.  
A job application was even given to another staff member as part of this 
process.  A conspiracy was being 
spearheaded by Employee to have all staff members resign at one time.  Another staff member did tender her 
resignation citing Employee's conduct as a reason to accept other 
employment.  Employer was told that 
Employee was disgruntled prior to her termination by Employer.  Whatever concerns Employee had were 
never addressed by her with Employer.

 
 
            
Since her termination, employee is/has been contacting staff 
telephonically as many as two to three times daily at 
work.

 
 
            
A former employee with whom Employee had developed a close association 
and who had previously been terminated by Employer a couple years ago has also 
been contacting staff telephonically at work as many as two to three times a day 
at work.  This former employee did 
not engage in virtually any contact with any staff member until after Employee's 
termination.

 
 

2Wyo. 
Stat. Ann. § 27-3-311(f) states:  

An 
individual shall be disqualified from benefit entitlement beginning with the 
effective date of an otherwise valid claim or the week during which the failure 
occurred, until he has been employed in an employee-employer relationship and 
has earned at least twelve (12) times the weekly benefit amount of his current 
claim for services after that date, if the department finds that he was 
discharged from his most recent work for misconduct connected with his 
work.