FIFTH DIVISION Decem ber 5, 2008

No. 1-07- 1646
CARME N T . C ZAJKA, ) Appe al fro m the ) Cir cu it Co ur t o f Plai ntif f-A ppelle e, ) Co o k C o un t y. ) v. ) No. 06 L 50739 ) THE DEPARTMENT OF ) The Honorable EMPLOYMENT SECURITY, BOARD OF ) She l don G ardn er, REVI EW, AND S AINT LI BORIUS SCHOOL, ) Judge Presidin g. ) De f en da n t-A pp el l an t. )

JU STI CETO OM IN

de l i v ered th e op i n i on of th e c our t: Plaint iff , C ar men T. Cza

jka, app eals fro m an or der of t he circ uit co ur t affirming the deci sion of the B oard of

Rev i ew of the Il l i noi s De partm en t of Em ploym en t Securi ty (th e Board ), whi ch den ie d Czaj ka’s cl

ai m f or unempl

oym ent compensation b enef

its. On appe al , Czaj ka contends t hat (1) the Boar d’s conclusi on that Czajka comm

itted st atut ory misconduct was agains t the mani fest weigh

t o f the evi

dence; and (2) the Boar d’s denial of b enefi ts violated Czajka’s f

irst amendment right t o t he fre e exe rc ise o f her r eligion. Fo r t he r eas ons t hat follow , w e r ever se a nd
rem and.1-07-1646

2 BACK GROUND Czaj ka was em

ploy ed as a sacristan at the Sain t Lib orius School, f

rom October 1992 through Decem

ber 2, 2005, earni

ng $6 an hour. Czajka, wh

o was 63 yea

rs old at the tim

e of her t er minatio n, w as r esp ons ible for k eep ing t he chu rc h and s acr isty clea n. S he wa s no t par t of t he school adm

in is trat ion. Cza

jka ’s termi

nation s temm ed from her obj ections to a program that was
ma ndated by the Roman

Catholi c Di ocese of Joli

et wherei n ch il dren would v

ie w a m ovie , “Tal kin g Ab out Touchin

g,” and partici

pate in dis cussi ons concerni

ng i nappropriate phy

si cal contact . On December 2, 2005, Reverend Tr eyes, pastor of Saint Li borius, fi red Czajka because of h er b l atan t in sub ordi na tion
. Fo llowing t er minatio n, C zajka so ught unemplo yment co mpensa t ion bene fits befo re t he local offi ce o f the Illi

nois Depart ment of Employm ent S ecurit y (IDES ). T he clai ms adjudicat or ’s in itial fi ndi ngs ref le ct that Czajka was discharged b ecause “ she di d not agree with the ch

urch.” On Decemb er 22, 2 005, t he adjudi cato r det ermi

ned that Czajka was eli

gib le f or benefi ts because the “action whi

ch resul ted in h er dis charge was n

ot delib erate or wil

lf ul.” Sai nt Li borius f il ed a t imely p r o t es t t o t he ad

jud ica t o r ’s de cis io n a nd so ug ht fur t he rr ev iew be fo r e t he I DE S A pp ea ls Di vision. On A pril 4, 2006, t he m

atter proceeded to a referee’ s heari ng be fore an adm

in is trat iv e l aw j udge . The

parties a ppea red b y tel eph one a nd prese nted the f oll owi ng r elev an t testi mony . Reveren d Treyes i ni tial ly testifi ed concerni

ng the “ Talki

ng A bout To uchi

ng” program m

andated by the d ioce se. In implement ing t he pr og ra m, t he sc hoo l not ifi ed t he pa re nt s o f the fil

m show ing to be f oll owed by cl assroom di scussi

ons attended by

students of the sch

ool and the rel

igi ous1-07-1646

3

education program. The f il m was schedul ed to be shown Novem ber 10, 2005, and duri

ng a
cas ual l unc h s ev eral day s pri or to the sh

owi ng Czaj ka v

oic ed h er disag reem en t wi th the program. On Novem

ber 14, the prin

ci pal and di rector of the religi

ous education program i

nf ormed Reveren d Treyes tha

t a school parent was putting f ly ers i n oppositi on to the program on cars at the Crete campus . He was al so in form ed of rum ors that indi

vi dual s opposing the program had threa tene d to al ert the m

edi a to wha t was l ab eled as pornogra phi c m aterial f or the ch i l dren . In t ur n, t he r ever end c alled Cz ajka t o his o ffi ce t o a sk he r w het her she k new a nything abo ut t he pa r en t co nc er ns o ve rt he Dio ce se ’s pr o gr am. Du r ing t he en su ing dis cu ss io n, Cz ajk a r ep ea t ed ly stated t hat she was

agai nst the program and tha

t she was telli

ng sch ool parents and parish f

am il ie s that t hey should not support it. In turn, Reveren d Treyes rem

in ded Czaj ka that she sh

ould m ake a dist inctio n bet wee n her per so nal op inion and o penly campa igning aga inst t he pr og ra m; tha t she
was an emplo yee o f the par ish and w as e xpec t ed t o s upp or t its p ro gr ams o r p olicies. Acco rd ing to Reveren

d Treyes, Cz aj ka refus ed “to agree with m e” and told h

im she would “l

ay [down] her li fe f or what she bel

ie ves i n.” She f ound the program tot ally

wrong, “cal

li ng i t po rnography .” Cza jka und er st oo d t hat Reve re nd T re yes was in earne st in war ning her t hat what she w as d oing
was not in acco rd wit h her po sitio n as a n employee of t he pa rish. She a ckno wledg ed t hat if she
cam pai gne d open

l y agai nst the progra

m “that would am

ount to proba

bl y resi gni ng as a s acristan .” Cza jka co nt inued t o w or k up t o he r va cat ion t ow ar d t he end of N ove mber. Reve re nd Treyes h ad no further conv

ersations wi

th Czaj ka nor did h

e recei ve an y a dditional report s of her dis agreem

ent wi th the program. Czaj ka was termi nated on Decem

ber 2, 2005, followi

ng he r return f rom v aca tion
.1-07-1646

4

In he r t est imony, Cz ajka a ckno wledg ed he r d isagr eement wit h t he pr og ra m, qu est ioning whether it actu all

y h ad been m

andated by Bishop Schlarm an. As an educator of 10 to 11 years, Cza jka did no t t hink it w as p ro per t o p ut t he mat er ials ou t unt il “they rea lly loo ked into it. ” She ad m i tted th at sh e c al

l ed on e p er son

, her cou si n ’s da ug h ter , a n d a sk ed h er to ca l l oth er pa re n ts to remi nd them that t hey could opt out of the program. She f urther explai

ned: “My wh o le t hing wa s t o ge t t he pa r en t s, ca ll t he m an d t ell th em go ch eck w i

th t he pr inc ipa l, se e w ha t t his is be f ore y ou let y our chi l dre n g o thr ough . I h ad not an opencam pai gn outs i de. The per so n t hat was ou t t her e pa ssing o ut lit er at ur e, she did i t on he r own.” I t wa s u nc o nt r o ve r t ed t ha t Cz ajk a’ s c all w as mad e b efo r e R ev er en d T r eye s c alle d h er t o his off i ce. A l thou gh Cz aj ka ac kn owl edge d that a s a

sacri sta n s he ha d n othi ng to do wi th s ch ool pol i cies, s he den i ed th at she had ca

m pai gne d open

l y agai nst the progra

m . “I had m y work as a sacris

tan. I could not be out sid e c amp ai gn i ng f or nothin g. If t hey want ed t o, t hey co uld. But I d idn’t have any time to do that because I was goin

g on vacati on. I had to leave the ch urch cl ean.” She agr eed t hat dur ing t he meet ing wit h Reve re nd T re yes, s he to ld h im that she “woul

d basi cally la y down her li f e to ma ke sure that the program

didn’ t get shown to the

studen ts.” The ref eree ’sdeci

sion rev ersi ng th e adjudicator’s

awar d was mail ed th e f

oll owi ng d ay . Am ong hi s f in din gs of f act, t he adm

in is trat iv e l aw j udge noted: “The em ploy er asserts that the clai

ma nt objec ted to a program

that was man

dated by1-07-1646

5

t he dioce se

of Jol i et w he rei n, ch i l dre n woul d v i ew a v i de o a nd pa r t icip at e in discu ssio ns conc ern

i ng i na ppropri ate touch i ng. The claimant obje cted to the program
and the vi ewi ng of the v i deo. The claimant voice d her co ncer ns t o t he pa st or . T he claimant th en

pr oce eded

to i m pl em en t a ‘gr ass r oo t s’ effo rt t o a bor t t he viewing of the v i deo. The cl

ai man t’s acti ons werere spo nsible for t he plac ing of leaflet s o n t he
cars at ser vices ca lli

ng [ for ] t he banning o f the pro gram. T he clai mant’s [ sic ] a dm

i ts her ac ti on s a

n d c on du ct i

n th i s reg ard a

n d b el i ev es th at the v i de o bor

de red on pornogra phy .” The ref eree like wis e observed that Czaj ka’s obj ection to the pro gram an d attendant vi deo was i nstrume ntal i n sub vertin g the program of the em

ploy er. He therefore concl

uded: “[T ]he cl ai man t’ s pe rs ona

l opi ni on tr an sc en de d her a uthori ty . The c l ai

man t took substantial

st ep s t o t hw ar t t he pr o gr am. I t is w ell s ettled t hat in all c ases wh

ere a worker com

es i n c ontact wi

th the em ploye r’scus tomer s in

the course of her work, she is unde r a dut y to co nduc t her self in a mann er so as not to injure t he employer’s i n terest. An em

ployee wh

o is im pude nt, discourteous, and/or argumentative when
ser vingthe em

ploy er’s patrons vi

olates and b

reaches a dut y a nd t he r esu lting di sch arge w i l l be cons i dered

m i scon duct.” The ref eree determi

ned that Czaj ka’s actions were agai nst the best interest of the em ploy er and that she was di scharged f or mi sconduct connected wi th her work. Accordingl

y, Cza jka was di squa l i f i ed f or une m ploym en t comp en sati

on b enef i ts. Cza j ka ap peal ed th e ref eree ’sdeci

sion to the B oard of

Rev i ew. In i ts dec i sion, the

Board1-07-1646

6

ess en tia l l y adopted a

nd m i rrored the f actual f i ndi ngs and l egal reas oni ng of the re f eree . Mo re ove r, t he Bo ar d highlight ed c er t ain findings re lative t o t he disp os itive No vember 1 0 meet ing between Czajka and Rev

erend Treyes: “At t his meet ing, t he pa st or t old her t hat she w as e nt itled t o he r p er so nal op inion, but
as an em ploye e of the Pa ri sh , she was

ex pected to supportthe

pol i cy of t he Pa rish. The cl ai ma nt stated that she bel

ie ved the program was

por n ograp h y an d adv i se d th at: ‘she wou ld lay down her lif e to make sure t hat t he pro gram did not get shown.’ Even after thi s di scussi

on, the clai

ma nt orchestrated a cam

pai gn to discredi

t t he program and ha ve it bo yco t t ed by p ar en t s. Su bse qu en t ly, s o me p ar en t s p ick et ed t he pr o gr am, and pl aced f ly ers on cars.” The B oard further f

ound: “The cla im

an t tol d th e p as tor th at s he un de rs tood that if

sh e took ac ti on agains t the pro gr am she w ou ld have t o lea ve her employment . N one t heless, she continued to activel

y ch all enge a progr am m

andated by the parish

wh ich effe ct ive ly underm in ed the activ

ities of h er empl oyer. The cl

ai ma nt’s act i vi

ti eswere n

ot prot ectedun

der the F i rs t A men dm en t o f the C onsti

tution
. See Garcetti et al. v. Ceballos , 1 26 S . C t . 1 951 (Ma y 30, 200 6) . We find the claim ant’s r efu sa l t o ac t in accordance with the e

mpl oyer’s pol ic ie s was sub ordination constitutin g mi sconduct under Section 602A

of the Act.” Accordin gly , the Board li

kewi se concl

uded that Czajka was di scharged f or mi sconduct
co nnect ed w ith w or k and was subjec t t o a disqu alifi cat ion o f benefits u nder sec t ion 6 02( A) o f the1-07-1646

7

Illinois Unemp loyment Insu ra nce Ac t . ( Act ) ( 820 ILC S 4 05/ 602 (A) (Wes t 200 4) ). In t ur n, Cz ajk a file d t he inst an t ac t io n se ek ing ad minist r at ive r ev iew o f t he Bo ar d’ s d ec isio n. T he cir cu it court af f i rmed th e dec i sion of

the B oard an

d Cza j ka n ow appe al s. AN AL YSIS On ap pea l from a d ecisio n denying une mployment co mpensa t ion bene fits, t he du t y of t he appe l l ate court i s to rev

i ew the dec i sion of

the b oard an

d not tha t of the ci rcui t court. Richardson Brother s v. Board

of Review

of Departme

nt of Employmen t Secur

ity , 198 Ill . App. 3d 422, 428- 29, 555 N.E .2d

112 6, 1 130

(19 90) . Ju

dici al rev i ew of an ad m i ni stra ti ve ag en cy ’s de ci si on
ex tend s to all

questions of

l aw an d f act pre sen ted i n the rec ord. 735 IL CS 5/3 -110 (W est 200 6). Th e s tan da rd of rev i ew govern i ng the ag en cy ’s de ci si on d ep en dsupon whether th

e q ue sti on pres en ted i s one of f act or l aw. City of

Belvidere v. Illino is State La bor Relati ons Board
. 18 1 I ll. 2d 191 , 204, 69 2 N.E.2d

295, 30 2 (199 8). In exam in in g an adm in is trat iv e agency ’s f

actual f in din gs, a reviewi

ng court do es not weigh the evi den ce or su bstitute i ts j udgm en t for th at of a

n adm i nistrati ve agen cy . Abrahamson v. Illinois Department of Professional Regulation , 153 Ill . 2d 76, 88, 606 N.E .2d 1111, 1117 (1992). The agency ’s purel y f actual f in din gs are prima facie

t ru e and co rr ect and w ill

not be di sturb ed un

l ess contrar y to the m an i f est we i ght of

the evi den ce. Jackson v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor , 105 I ll . 2d 501, 513, 475 N.E. 2d 879, 8 85 (1985 ). Findi ngs are agains

t the w eight of

the evi den ce wh en , f rom th e rec ord, an

opposi te conc l usi on i s cl earl y evi den t. Zuaznaba r v. Board

of Review

of Departme

nt of Employmen t Secur

ity , 257 Ill . App. 3d 354, 358, 628 N. E. 2d 9 86, 990 (1 993 ). Ho weve r, pr ece dent instr uct s t hat we o we no defer ence t o t he1-07-1646

8

agen cy ’sconc l usi ons of l aw. Wrob el v. Depa rtment o f Employment Security , 344 Ill . App. 3d 533, 536, 801 N.E. 2d 29, 33 (2003). Whether an em ploy ee’s conduct am

ounted to mi

sconduct under the Ac

t is a question of l

aw, which we rev

ie w de novo
. Grigoleit Co. v. Department of Employmen t Secur

ity , 282 Il l . Ap p. 3d 64 , 71, 669N.E.2d 1 05, 110 (1996 ). However, where the i ssue on appeal in volv es a m ix ed question of

la w and f act, deference will be giv en t o t he ag en cy’ s d ec isio n a nd we will r ev er se o nly wh en t he de cis io n is c lea r ly
errone ous. Moss v. D epartm ent of Employme nt Secur ity , 357 Ill . App. 3d 980, 984-85, 830 N.E.2d 6 63, 667 -68 (20 05). “[A] mixed que st ion is o ne in which t he hi stori cal f ac ts a re a dm i tted or establ is hed, the rul e of law is und isput ed, and t he issue is whet her t he f acts s ati sf y the statutory standard, or whether the rule of l aw as ap pl i ed to the es tab l i sh ed f ac ts is or i s n ot vi olated.” Moss , 357 Il

l . Ap p. 3d a t 984, 830

N.E.2d a t 667. Under the cl

early erroneous standard, we give somewh at less deferen ce to t he agen

cy than
we wou l d if th e dec i si

on re l ate d s ol el

y to a q ue sti on of f ac t, b ec au se

th e dec i si

on i s b as ed on f ac tf i ndi ng th at i s i ns epara bl e f rom th e app l i cation of

l aw to f act. Carpe tland U.S.A., Inc., v. Illinois Depart ment of Employm ent Secu rity , 2 01 I ll. 2d 3 51, 369 , 7 76 N .E .2 d 16 6, 177 (2 002 ). The agen cy ’sdeci sion wi l l be deem ed cl earl y errone ous onl

y wh ere the rev

i ewi ng c ourt, on the

en tire
reco rd, is ‘l

eft with t he defin

ite and firm

conviction t hat a mistake has been co mm itte d.’ AFM Messe nger Se rvice , Inc. v. Depar

tment of Employm ent Secu rity , 198 Ill . 2d 380, 393, 763 N.E .2d 272, 280-81 (2001), quo ting United States v. United States Gypsum Co. , 333 U.S. 364, 395, 92 L. Ed. 7 46, 766 , 68 S. C t. 525, 542(1948 ).1-07-1646

9

Here , w e a

repr es en ted wi th se v eral qu esti on s th

at req ui reappl i ca ti on of certai n f ac ts to determi ne thei r legal eff ect. We m

ust determi

ne wh ether (1) there was a del

ib erate and will

ful vi olation of a rule or poli

cy ; (2) the rule or poli

cy of the em ploy in g uni t was reasonabl

e; an d (3) the vi olation e ither h

ad harm ed the em ploy er or was repeated by the em ploy ee despi te previous warni ngs. See 820 ILCS 405/602(A ) (West 2004). Because reoluti on of these f actors embrace mi xed questions of l

aw and f aul t, we wil l a pply a cl early erroneous standard. See Manning v. Depart ment of Employm ent Secu rity , 365 Il l . Ap p. 3d 55 3, 557, 8 50 N.E.2 d 244, 2 47 (20 06). The Act (820 ILCS 405/100 et seq . (W est 20 04 )) prov

i de s e con om i c rel i ef to al l ev i ate
econ omi c di stres s ca

use d by i nv olu ntary une m ploym en t. AFM Messenger Service , 198 Ill . 2d at 396 , 7 63 N .E .2 d at 282 . While une mployment insura nce be nefits a re a co ndit ional r ight and t he b urden of estab l i sh i n g e l i gi b i l i ty re sts wi th th e c l ai man t, the A ct m us t b e l i b eral l y i n ter pr ete d to f avor the awardi

ng of bene f i ts. Lachenmyer v. Didrickson , 263 Ill . App. 3d 382, 388, 636 N.E. 2d 93, 98 ( 199 4); Adams v. Ward , 206 Il l . Ap p. 3d 71 9, 723, 5 65 N.E.2 d 53, 56 (1990 ). Howev

er, we nonethel

ess recogni

ze that the Act was not mean t t o pro vi de ben efi ts to em ploy ees di scharged f or thei r own m i sde eds
. Siler v

. Departm ent of Employme nt Secur ity , 192 Ill . App. 3d 971, 974, 549 N .E.2d 760 , 762 (1 989). Ind ividuals who ar e disc har ged for miscond uct ar e ineligible to re ceive u nemployment ben efi ts under the Act. Section 602(A) of the Act (820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 2004)), provides th e g ui de post f or d ete rm i n i n g di sq ual i f y i n g m i sc on du ct: “[T ]he de l i

be rate an d w i l l f ul vi ol ati on of a re as ona bl e ru l e or p ol i cy

of t he emplo ying
un it , go ve rning t he ind ividua l’s be ha vio rin performa nce of h is work, pr ovide d

such1-07-1646

10

vi ol ati on has h arm ed the em pl oy i ng un i t orot her em

ploy ees or has b een repeated

by t he i nd i vi dua l de sp i te a wa rni ng or oth er exp l i ci

t i ns tructi on f rom the em ployi ng u ni t.” In Manning v. De

partme nt of Employmen t Secur

ity , 365 Ill . App. 3d 553, 557, 850 N.E. 2d 244, 2 48 (2006 ), we r ecognized that t hree elem ents must be proven to establi sh
m i sc ond uc t un de r th e A ct: ( 1) th at there wa s a “ de l i be rate an d w i l l f ul ” v i ol ati on of a ru l e or policy ; (2) the rule or poli cy of the em ploy in g uni t was reasonabl

e; an d (3) that t he v

iolation ei ther ha s harm ed th e em ploye r or was r epea ted by the em ploye e des

pi te prev i ous wa rni ngs . Ad dr es sing t he firs t ele men t , o ur fo cu s is up o n w he t he rCz ajk a d elibe r at ely a nd willfu lly vio lat ed a r ule o rpo licy. I n t his r eg ar d, o ur inq uir y embr ac es qu es t io ns o f law an d fa ct be ca us e it in volv es consi derin g whether the f

acts support the Board’s fi ndi ngs an d concl usi ons of a wi

ll ful and del ib erate viol

ation. See AFM Messenger Ser vice , 198 Il

l . 2d at 39 2, 763 N .E.2d at 28 0. In th e adm i n i strati v e h ea ri n g, t h e B oard dete

rm i n ed th at C za j ka ’s re f us al to act i n ac corda n ce wi th her em ploye r’spol i cies w arran

ted “ di sch arge f or mi scon duct con ne cted wi th work.” The Board found that when

Czaj ka obj ected to the program and v oiced h er concerns to the pastor , she was tol d that a s a

mem be r of the Par i sh , sh e w asex pe cte d to supp ort i

ts p ol i ci esan d if sh e took ac ti on ag ain st t he pr o gr am, she wo uld ha ve t o lea ve he remp lo yment . T he Bo ar d fu r t he rfo un d t ha t in response, Czaj ka told the pastor t hat she b elie ved the program was

pornography an

d advi sed that “sh e would l ay down her l

if e to make sure that the program di d not get showed” and thereafter
or ches t ra t ed a campa ign t o d iscre dit t he pr og ra m and have it bo ycot t ed by t he pa re nt s. T he Board then concl

uded that despite the warni ngs, Czaj ka “conti

nued to activel

y c hal le nge a program m

andated by

the paris h wh ic h ef fecti vel y un dermi ned the acti

vi ties of her em ploy er.”1-07-1646

11

Alt ho ug h w e a r e mind ful t ha t a r ev iew ing co ur t will no t r ew eig h t he ev ide nc e in t he rub r ic of ad m i n i strati v e rev i ew , b ec au se

th e B oard’ s dec i si

on pr es en ts a m i x ed qu esti on of l aw an d f ac t, our f unc tion i s to determ

i ne wh ethe r the d ecision i s cl

earl y errone ous. Car

petla nd U.S

.A. , 20 1 I ll. 2d at 369, 776 N.E .2d at 177. In the i ns tan t proc ee di ng s, ou r revi ew of the rec ord l eadsto the

i ne sc ap ab l e c onc l

us i on t hat t he Bo ar d’s findings o f a deliber at e and willf ul violat ion is indee d clea rly err one ou s. F irst and forem ost, al though the Board found that Czaj ka contin ued to act iv

el y c hal le nge a program mandat ed by t he Pa rish eve n aft er Reve re nd T re yes’ wa rning, t hat finding pat ent ly confuse s t he seq uenc e o f event s highlighte d in t he r eco rd . Mo re ove r, t he finding is act ually refut ed by
un co nt r o ve r t ed ev ide nc e e st ab lishin g t ha t Cz ajk a w as firs t info rmed o f he ro blig at io n t o ac t in
ac corda n ce wi th h er em pl oy er ’s pol i ci es on Nov em b er 14 , 20 05 , a f

ter sh e h ad al re ad y sp oke n to paris hi oners. The m

eetin g al so occurred after t he Pastor was in form ed that in div idua ls opposed t o t he pr o gr am h ad pla ce d flye r s o n c ar s a nd t hr ea t en ed t o ale r t t he med ia. Se co nd , t he r ec o r d is ba rren of a ny evi den ce even s ugge sti ng th at Cza j ka pi cketed the program

or pl ace d f

l yers on cars . Thi rd, notwithstandi

ng he r tacit oppo si

tion to t he program, there i s utterly n o evi dence that Cza j ka orch estrated an y cam pai gn to discre di

t the progra

m af ter he r di scu ssi on wi th the pas tor. It is t he r efo r e a pp ar en t t ha t t he Bo ar d’ s find ing o f a v io lat io n c o nt r o ve r t s t he max im post hoc, ergo propter hoc , the fal

la cy of conf usi ng sequen

ce wi th consequenc e. “Here, as elsewhere i n the l aw, propter hoc

mus t be dis t ing uis he d fr o m post hoc ”. Hennigan v. Ouachita Parish S chool Bo ard , 749 F .2d 114 8, 1152(5th C i r. 1985 ). See a

l so Bl ack’ s La w Di cti onary 205 (8 th ed . 2004) , (

post hoc ).1-07-1646

12

Ev en a ss uming t he e xist enc e o f an e vide nt iar y bas is fo r t he B o ar d’ s fa ct ua l finding o f a violat ion, we c anno t co nclude fro m the r eco rd t hat Cza jka’s c ond uct was per for med willfull y and deliber at ely. Will

ful co nduc t is a co nscio us a ct made in violat ion o f co mpany ru les, w hen t he
em ploye e kn ows i t is agai nst the rul

es. Livingst

on v. Depar

tment of Employm ent Secu rity , 375 Ill . App. 3d 710, 716, 873 N.E. 2d 444, 451 (2007), citin g Lachenmyer , 263 Ill . App. 3d at 389, 636 N.E.2d at 99 (“[w]i ll ful conduct stems f

rom an em

ploy ee’s awaren

ess of an d conscious disre gar d fo r, a co mpany ru le”) M or eo ver , t o d isqua lif y an employee fro m rece iving
unem ploy me nt compensation, an

em ploy er must satisf

y a hi gher burden

than m erely provin g that
an em ploye e sh oul d ha ve be en di sch arged
. Zuaznabar , 257 Ill . App. 3d at 358-59, 628 N.E .2d at 990. Here, notwithstandi ng the hallm

ark of def erential review, we are unab le

to concl ude that Cza jka’s c ond uct was willf

ul o r d eliberat e. Altho ugh s he co nced edly op po sed t he pr og ra m and
even a ct ively spok e ag ainst its implement at ion, t her e simply is no evidenc e de monst ra t ing t hat she engaged i n the conduct wi

th an awaren

ess of an y rul e or po li cy forbi ddin g her f rom express in

g her views to parishi

oners. Not abl

y, wh en Rev erend Trey

es f irst learned of C zaj ka’s b elie fs durin g a causal l unch precedin

g the film showing, he provided n

o mention or warning that speaking agai nst t he pr og ra m wou ld violat e any po licy or r ule. Given t hat Cza jka wa s first app rised of t he r ule by Rev eren d Tr ey es du ri n g h er Nov em b er 14 meeti n g, we b el

i ev e th at th e actual se qu en ce of ev en ts
ne ces sari l y und erm i ne s the Board’ s con

cl usi on tha t Czaj ka’ s actions we

re wi l l f ul or del i berate. We l ike wis e concl

ude that Czajka’ s statemen t t o Reverend Trey

es duri ng the m eetin g that she cons ide

red the video in

cl uded i n the di ocese’s program “a form

of pornography ,” and that1-07-1646

13

“she wo uld lay do wn her lif e t o p re vent its s how ing t o s t ude nt s” d id no t co nst itu t e a w ill ful and delib erate viol

ation of the em

ploy er’s poli cy . The statement cl

early was m ade durin g a heated argumen t between Czaj ka and the pasto r and whi le a si ngle fl urry of tem

per between a worker
an d a su pervi sor may suf f i ce to wa rra n t disch arge

i n an at- wi l l re l ati on sh i p, i t i s n ot en oug h to den y une m ploym en t ben ef i ts. Olesz czuk v . Departm ent of Employme nt Secur ity , 336 Ill . App. 3d 46, 52, 782 N. E. 2d 8 08, 813 (2 002 ). No r is mer e ar gument wit h a su per visor wit hou t using abusi ve l anguag e or thre ats suf

f i cien t to establ i sh di sch arge f or mi scon duct un der the Act. Gee v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor , 136 Ill . App. 3d 889, 896, 483 N.E. 2d 1025, 1029- 30 (19 85). The sec ond element t hat must be pr ove n t o e st ablish misco nduc t unde r t he Act is tha t t he rule or poli

cy of the em ploy in g uni t was reasonabl

e. See Manning , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 557, 850 N. E. 2d a t 248 . A r eas ona ble ru le enco mpasse s st anda rd s o f behavior t hat an emplo yer has a r ight to expe ct f

rom a n em ploye e. Bandemer

v. Depar tment of Employm ent Secu rity , 204 Ill . App. 3d 192, 195 , 562 N. E.2d 6 , 7 (19 90). No tably, such a rule need not be written o r ot herwise f orma l ized. Cater

pillar, Inc. v

. Departm ent of Employme nt Secur ity , 313 Ill . App. 3d 645, 654, 730 N. E. 2d 4 97, 505 (2 000 ). No r is t he emplo yer r equ ired t o p ro ve t he exist ence of t he r ule by di rect ev i den ce. Green law

v. Depar tment of Employm ent Secu rity , 299 Ill . App. 3d 446, 448, 701 N.E .2d 175, 177 (199 8). Yet , we may reach that d etermination “throu gh a comm on sense reali zation that some b ehav

ior i ntentiona ll y a nd sub stantial

ly dis regards an em

ploy er’s i nterests.” Stovall v . Departm ent of Employme nt Secur ity , 262 Ill . App. 3d 1098, 1102, 640 N.E. 2d 299, 303 (1 994).1-07-1646

14

Her e, t he Bo ar d ar gue s t hat t he pa rish had a legit imate bu siness int er est in pre sent ing t he diocese’ s program on i

nappropriate touchin

g. In furtheran

ce of that in

terest, the paris

h operated
a s ch ool an d a Su n da y sch ool wi th th e i n ten ti on of pr es en ti n g th i s progra m to ed uc ate i ts student s. We agree with the Boar d that the pro gram was part o f the parish ’s legitim ate business operations. Lest there be an y m is understandi

ng, however, i

t should b e cl ear that the rule or poli cy
weconsi de r doe s n

ot con cern the meri ts of the dioce se ’s prog ram . Ma ni f es tl y , th e d es i

rabi l i ty or pr o pr iet y o f t ha t de cis io n is c lea r ly beyo nd t he sc o pe o f o ur inq uir y. R at he r , t he rule at iss ue is the requirem

ent that empl

oyees ac t in ac cordance wi

th the policy

ma ndated by the diocese. Or, as alt er na t ive ly st at ed , t ha t emp lo yee s s uc h a s M s. Cz ajk a r efr ain fr o m ac t ive ly cha lleng ing pr o gr ams i m pl em en ted by the p ari sh
. We f urther concur in

the Board’s position that t he rule or po li cy articulated does indee d
encom pass standards of

beh avi or which an em ploy er has a ri ght to expect f

rom an em

ploy ee. See Bandemer , 204 Ill . App. 3d at 195, 562 N.E .2d at 7. Ho wever, at the sam e tim e, we recogniz e that the r easo nable rule or policy a cl aim ant must violate is one “gover nin g t he in divi dual’s be ha vio rin p er fo rman ce o f his w o rk. ” 8 20 I LC S 4 05 /6 02 ( A) ( We st 20 04 )
. As o ur su pr eme
co ur t re co gnized in Jackson v. Board of Review , no t ev er y vio lat io n o f a c o mpa ny r ule will constitute misconduct. “There m ust be some

nex us between the

rule an d the em ploy me nt.” Jackson , 105 Il. 2d at 512, 475 N.E. 2d at 885. In thi s case, Czaj ka posits that the rule or poli cy she al le gedl y v iolated had no nex

us to her empl oym ent at t he di ocese. S he asserts t hat the diocese’s pro gram was i mpl emen ted by the parish scho ol and not t he chu rc h, a nd t hat her wo rk as a sac rist an pe rfo rming mainte nance at Saint1-07-1646

15

Li borius h ad nothin g to do with the i

mpl em entation of the program . Al though she conce des that her actions i

n oppos i ng th e progra m could ha ve potential l y af f ected th e perf orma nc e of her work as a sacristan, she argues that t here is n o evidence that her wor k suff ered as a result o f those actions. Cza jka plac es r eliance u po n Caterpillar, Inc. v. Fehrenbacher, 286 Ill . App. 3d 614, 616 N. E. 2d 7 10 ( 199 7) , w her e t he de fendant was fired fo r vio lating t he co mpany ru le aga inst t he displ ay of un ion m aterial on company

pro pert y. At the time, propo sed legi slati on (“S-55")
sou gh t to b ar h i ri n g p er man en t repl ac em en ts f or s tri ki n g u n i on wor kers . D ef en da n t re f us ed to
re move a sign fro m the w indo w o f his tr uck , w hich he pa rk ed in t he co mpany par king lo t . T he sign read, “Support S-55 St op Scabs From Taki ng Un ion J obs.” Fehrenbacher

, 286 Ill . App. 3d at 616, 6 76 N.E.2 d at 711 -12. In rei nstatin g the Board’ s de ci sion tha

t the rul e di d not govern defen dant in the perform

ance of hi s work, t he Fehrenbacher court fi rst acknowledged that defendant’s behavior was “co nnected w ith hi s wor k” in that it to ok p lace on his em ployer’s propert y, rel

ated to hi s em

ploy me nt and the condi

tions thereof, an

d had the reasonable

pot entia l to aff ect the perf orma nc e of his duti es. Fehrenbacher

, 286 Ill . App. 3d at 623, 676 N.E .2d at 716. However, the court nonethel ess concl uded: “[P ]lacing t he sig n in

t he win do w o f his t ruc k w as no t ‘c o nne ct ed wit h his wo rk, ’ in the sense that i

t occ ur re d ou tsi de th e actual

pl ac e of wor k, d i d n ot re l ate di re ctl y to t he perf orm an ce of h i s j ob as

a l ath e op erator , a

n d h ad n o actual di re ct o r in direct eff ect on th e perform an ce o f his d ut ies ( o t he rt ha n, o f co ur se , lea din g t o his dis charge).” Fehrenbacher , 286 Il l . Ap p. 3d a t 623, 676N.E.2d a

t 716.1-07-1646

16

Ho weve r, ot her dec isions a fford a mor e exp ansive o r libera l inter pr et at ion o f the employer ’s r ules o r p olicies. Thu s, in Manning v. De partme nt of Employmen t Secur

ity , we he ld t hat a ho st ile, intimidat ing and vu lgar messag e left on a co -w or ker ’s ho me answ er ing machine
su b sta n ti al l y di sreg arde d th

e em pl oy er ’s b us i n es s a n d th ereb y con sti tute d th e req ui si te
m i scon duct. Manning , 3 65 I ll. App. 3d a t 558 , 8 50 N .E .2 d at 249 . S imi larly, in Caterpillar, Inc. v. Depar tment of Employm ent Secu rity , w e de t er mined t hat t he exist ence of a po licy requ iring
em ploye es to stop m

aki ng u nw an ted con tact wi th a c o-worker wa s a re ason ab l e rul e or poli cy . Caterpillar Inc. , 313 Il

l . Ap p. 3d 64 5, 654, 7 30 N.E.2 d 497, 5 04-05 (2000 ). We find t he r at io nale o f Manning and Caterpillar t o be per sua sive. T he fact t hat t he Board’s rule e

ncom passed actions that did n

ot directl y rel ate to Czaj ka’s duti es as a sa cristan
cou pled with the unde rst anding that t hey m ay have taken place o ff

dut y and out side the churc h’s propert y, do not negate a nex us between the

paris h’s rule an d Czaj ka’s em

ploy me nt. Therefore, we find t hat t he r ule o r p olicy of S aint L ibor ius re quir ing emplo yees t o a ct in acco rd ance wit h t he pol i cies of

the p ari sh

wasa rea sona

bl e rul e wi thi n the purv

i ew of section 602(A ) of th e Act. We next add re ss t he t hird a nd final req uire ment t hat t o e st ablish misco nduc t unde r t he A ct, th e v i ol ati on ei th er h as h ar med th e em pl oy er or w as repe ate d b

y th e em pl oy ee de sp i te previous warni

ngs. See Manning , 36 5 I l l . A pp . 3d at 5 57 , 85 0 N .E. 2d

at 2 48 . C za

j ka su b m i ts that the Board d i d not establ

i sh that her em

ploye r suf f ered a ctual ha rm as a resu l t of her con

duct. In Adams v. Ward , 20 6 Il l . A pp. 3d 7 19, 729 , 56 5 N .E.2 d 53 , 59 (19 90) , ab senc e of
ac t ua l ha rm un de rmined t he Bo ar d’ s find ing o f misc o nd uc t wh er e c o mpa ny u nifo rms imp r o pe r ly dis ca r de d b y t he cla imant we r e r et r iev ed by an o t he remp lo yee . An id en t ica l re su lt o bt ain ed in1-07-1646

17

Zuaznabar , where we rej ected the argumen t t hat the Board could i

nf er harm because a bus dri ver’s una uthori zed s tops som ehow place d Grey

houn d pas sen gers at ri sk. Zuaznabar , 25 7 I ll. App. 3d at 357, 628 N.E. 2d at 989. We determi ned that a m

ere potential f

or inj ury is not enough to estab l i sh

the th i rd el em en t for a f i ndi ng of statutory m i scon duct, Zuaznabar , 257 Ill . App. 3d at 357, 628 N.E.2d at 989. How ever, wedo re cogni

zetha t the re i s a sp l i t of au thor i ty asto whether th

e p ros pe ct of future harm constitut es harm wi thin the m

akin g of section 602(A) o f the Act. 820 ILCS 405 /6 02( A) ( West 200 4) . Fo r e xample, in Bandemer , w her e t he sa les manag er failed t o no t ify t he st or e manag er t hat she w as u nable t o o pen t he st or e bec aus e o f sicknes s, w e de t er mined t hat t he threa t of f uture f i na nc i al l oss re sul tin g f rom th e store’ s cl

osure was h

arm f ul to the em ploye r. Bandemer , 2 04 I ll. App. 3d a t 195 , 5 62 N .E .2 d at 8. Simil ar ly, in Winklmeier v. Board of Review of the Department of Labor , 115 Ill . App. 3d 154, 155-56, 450 N.E .2d 353, 354-55 (1983), we found that m

is conduct stemm

in g from the fi li ng of f al se m edi cal cl ai ms could resul

t in h igh er insura nce c os t s and financial loss t o t he co mpany. Like wise, in Manning , alt ho ug h t he vo ice mail
mes sa ge left by t he cla imant may no t ha ve dir ec t ly har med t he emp lo yer , it wa s p o t en t ially harm ful because the use of h

ostil e and i

ntim ida ting l anguage to a co-wo rker could advers el y a ff ect the work en

vi ronm en t. Manning , 365 Ill . App. 3d at 558, 850 N.E .2d at 248. In t he ca se a t bar , t he Bo ar d fo und t hat t he r equ isite e lement o f harm wa s est ablished by Cza jka’s a ct ions, which “effect ively under mined t he ac t ivities o f her e mployer .” Yet , t hat finding is bere ft o f any supp or t in the r eco rd , c er t ainly not fro m Rever end T re yes’ t est imony. We ha ve previously

rejected the argumen

t t hat Czaj ka orchestrated a campai ng to discredi

t t he program1-07-1646

18

aft er she wa s w ar ne d a ga inst su ch ac t io n; e ve n a ss umin g s he ha d d o ne so , t he r e is simp ly no ba sis t o c onc lude t hat her act ions ha d any mod icum of su cce ss. Reve re nd T re yes pr ovid ed no testim ony e ven suggestin

g that im ple me ntation of the program was at any tim e del ay ed, disrupted
or derailed by the actions o f Czajka, or any other indivi dual. Ther efore, we fin

d t he Boar d’s
co nc lus io ns r eg ar din g h ar m, eit he rac t ua l o rpo t en t ial, ar e e nt ire ly sp ec ula t ive an d c o nje ct ur al. We last addr ess Czajka’ s clai m that her actions were pro tect ed by the free exercise cl

ause
o f t he firs t ame nd men t . He r e, she se ek s r elia nc e u po n t he ho ldin g o f t he Un it ed St at es Su pr eme Co ur t t hat a “pe rso n may not be co mpelled t o c hoo se be t wee n t he exe rc ise o f a first amendment righ t and partici

pation i n an ot herwi se avai

la ble publ ic program.” Thomas v. Review Board of Indiana Employment Security Division , 45 0 U .S. 70 7, 7 16 , 67L. Ed. 2d 62 4, 6 33 , 10 1 S . C t. 142 5, 1 431 (19 81) . Cz aj ka su bm i ts th at the d en i al of unem pl oy men t com pe ns ati on b en ef i ts to a worker based on conduct that is “ roo ted in rel

igi on” vi olates the Fi

rst Ame ndm ent. See Frazee v. Illinois De

partme nt of Employmen t Secur

ity , 489 U.S. 829, 834, 103 L. Ed. 2d 914, 920 , 109 S. Ct. 1514 , 1517- 18 (19 89). Al though Czaj ka’s argum

ent rais es some

chal le ngi ng questions, we hav

e al ready rej ected t he de cis io n o f t he Bo ar d o n no nc o nst it ut io na l gr o un ds , find ing t he de cis io n t o be cle ar ly
er ro neo us. Having d one so , w e ad her e t o t he r ule r eite ra t ed in In re E.H. , 224 Ill . 2d 172, 181, 863 N.E.2d 231, 236 ( 2006), that co urts must avoi d considerin g constitutional

questions wi

thout fi rst exhausti

ng al l potential nonconsti

tut iona l grounds f

or resolvi ng the case . Were we to decide t he ca se o n t he co nst it ut io na l gr o un ds ar t icu lat ed by Cz ajk a, we wo uld be r eq uir ed t o st at e in wri tin g tha t our decision ca

nn ot rest upon

an al terna tiv e groun d. See 210 Il l . 2d R. 1 8(c)(4 ).1-07-1646

19

Adher ence t o t hat Rule ne ces sar ily impact s t he efficacy o f ou r a dministr at ive review . H aving base d o ur dec ision o n suc h alte rna t ive gr ou nd, we d ecline Cza jka’s invit at ion t o a ddr ess t he
constituti onal i ssue sh e has prese

nted
. CONCLUSION For the f oreg oi ng rea sons, we f

i nd tha t the de ci si on d en y i ng Ca rm en Cz aj ka ’s cl ai m f or
unem ploy me nt in surance b enef

its was c le arly

erroneous as bei

ng the resul

t o f an im proper appl i cation of the l aw. W e rev erse the orde r of th e ci rcui t court af f i rm i ng th e order of the B oard and r emand w ith d irect ions t o va cat e t he o rd er of t he Bo ar d and co nduc t a hea ring t o d et er mine the a m ount of une m ploym en t ben ef i ts to whi ch Cza j ka i s en titl ed. Rev erse d an d rem anded wi th di rections. FITZ GERA

LD SM ITH, P.J., w

i th O' MA RA FR OSSA RD, J ., conc

ur.1-07-1646

20 REPORT ER OF D ECI SION S - ILLI NOIS APPE LLATE COURT

(Fron t Sh eet to be Attach ed to Each Case) Please use CARMEN T. CZAJKA , fo llow ing fo rm: Plaintiff -Appe llant, Comple te v. TITLE of Case IDES , Bd . of Re vie w, S t. Liborius

Schoo l, Defenda nt -Appel lee.
Docket Nos
. No. 1-07-1646 COURT Appe llate Co urt of Illinois Fir st D ist ri ct, 1st Divi sion Op inio n Filed Dec ember 5, 2008 (Give month, da y and year) JUSTICES JUSTICE TOOMIN deliv ered the o pinion of the co urt: FITZGERALD SMITH, P.J., a nd O’MARA FROSSARD, J. , c onc ur.

AP PEA L f rom the Lo

w er C ou rt and Trial J udg e( s) in f

orm indi ca te d in margi

n: Ci rc ui t C our t of Co ok Co unty ; the Ap pe a l fr om t h e C i r cu i t Co ur t of C ook Co un t y. Ho n.___________, Judge Presiding. The Hon. Shel don Ga rn er , Judge Presiding. For APPELLANTS, Indi ca te if attorne y repres ent s A

PP EL LA NTSo r AP PEL

LE ES a nd Joh n D oe, of include atto rneys of co unsel. Indicate

the wo rd NONE if Ch ica go. not represented. For APPELLEES, Fo r Appe lla nt, AlonzoRi

va s, M. Garrett H

ohi me r, Smith and S mith, and Marisel A. Hernandez o f J aco bs , Bu rns, Orlove , of Chicago Stanto n & H ernandez, of Chicago
. For App ell ee, L isa Mad ig an , At tor ne y Gene ra l, Mic ha el A . Sc odr o, Sol ici tor Genera l, Stat e of

Illin ois. Jo se ph B row n, (Timothy K. Mc Pike , Ass istant A

ttorne y Gene ral). of counsel). Als o add attorneys for thirdpart y appellantsa nd/or appellees. (USE R EVERSE SIDE IF NEEDED)1-07-1646

21