COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Benton, Coleman and Willis 

BETTY J. DAVIS 

 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

v. Record No. 1685-97-3 PER CURIAM 

 JANUARY 27, 1998 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION 

 AND PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF PITTSYLVANIA COUNTY 

William N. Alexander, II, Judge 

 (Philip B. Baker; Joseph A. Sanzone 

Associates, P.C., on brief), for appellant. 

 (Richard Cullen, Attorney General; William A. 

Diamond, Assistant Attorney General; Robert 

L. Walker, Assistant Attorney General, on 

brief), for appellee Virginia Employment 

Commission. 

 (Glenn W. Pulley; Clement & Wheatley, on 

brief), for appellee Pittsylvania County 

School Board. 

 Betty J. Davis contends that the trial court erred in 

affirming a decision of the Virginia Employment Commission which 

disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits on the 

ground that she was discharged from her employment for misconduct 

connected with work under Code § 60.2-618(2). Upon reviewing the 

record and briefs of the parties, we conclude this appeal is 

without merit. Accordingly, we summarily affirm the circuit 

court's decision. See Rule 5A:27. 

 "Initially, we note that in any judicial proceedings `the 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
- 2 - 

findings of the commission as to the facts, if supported by 

evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and 

the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of 

law.'" Israel v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 7 Va. App. 169, 

172, 372 S.E.2d 207, 209 (1988) (citation omitted). "In accord 

with our usual standard of review, we 'consider the evidence in 

the light most favorable to the finding by the Commission.'" 

Wells Fargo Alarm Servs., Inc. v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 24 

Va. App. 377, 383, 482 S.E.2d 841, 844 (1997) (citation omitted). 

 So viewed, the evidence proved that Davis worked as a bus 

driver for the Pittsylvania County School Board from September 5, 

1973 through September 3, 1996. The School Board had a policy, 

of which Davis was aware, that prohibited bus drivers from 

discharging students at any location other than an authorized bus 

stop. 

 Davis was assigned to drive students to and from Blairs 

Middle School. On September 3, 1996, Pittsylvania County was 

experiencing torrential rains and flooding which caused some 

roads in the county to be closed. Before Davis departed that 

afternoon to take the children on her route home, the school 

principal informed her that one of the roads on the route 

-- Route 866 -- was closed due to flooding. The principal 

advised Davis to exercise her judgment in completing the route. 

 Upon reaching Route 866, Davis discovered that the road was 

impassable. Nearby, Davis observed Carolyn Simpson Harper, who 
- 3 - 

was standing outside her house, waiting for her grandchildren to 

be dropped off by another bus. Davis testified that, at that 

time, "it was raining so hard, you could barely see how to 

drive." Davis had seven children on her bus that were to be 

discharged at stops along Route 866. She asked Harper if these 

seven children could use Harper's telephone to call their 

parents. Harper assented. 

 Davis left the seven children in Harper's yard and departed 

without determining whether the children, who ranged in age from 

eleven to thirteen years old, actually proceeded to Harper's 

house to use the phone. She did not know whether any of the 

children's parents would be home. 

 Before discharging the children at Harper's residence, Davis 

made no attempt to ascertain whether there was an alternate route 

by which she could take them home. The commission found as 

follows: 

 [Davis] knew that [Route 866] intersected at 

least two other roads which could provide her 

access beyond the point where she was 

stopped. In fact, one of those access points 

was near her home, and she actually drove on 

it later on in her route. Another school bus 

driver delivering elementary school children 

was able to access that portion of the road 

cut off by flood waters by using one of the 

alternate routes. 

 Instead of calling their parents from Harper's house, the 

children walked home. Some of the children walked as far as two 

miles and waded through flood waters five feet deep to get to 

their residences. 
- 4 - 

 Code § 60.2-618(2) provides that a claimant will be 

disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if she is 

discharged from employment for misconduct connected with work. 

 [A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct 

connected with his work" when he deliberately

violates a company rule reasonably designed 

to protect the legitimate business interests 

of his employer, or when his acts or 

omissions are of such a nature or so 

recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard 

of those interests and the duties and 

obligations he owes his employer. 

Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va. 609, 611, 249 

S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). "Whether an employee's behavior 

constitutes misconduct . . . is a mixed question of law and fact 

reviewable by this court on appeal." Israel, 7 Va. App. at 172, 

372 S.E.2d at 209. 

 When an employer adopts a rule, that 

rule defines the specific behavior considered 

to harm or to further the employer's 

interests. By definition, a violation of 

that rule disregards those interests. The 

rule violation prong, then, allows an 

employer to establish a prima facie case of 

misconduct simply by showing a deliberate act 

which contravenes a rule reasonably designed 

to protect business interests. 

Virginia Employment Comm'n v. Gantt, 7 Va. App. 631, 634-35, 376 

S.E.2d 808, 811, aff'd on reh'g en banc, 9 Va. App. 225, 385 

S.E.2d 247 (1989). A single violation of a policy may be 

sufficient, as a matter of law, to constitute misconduct. See

id. at 636, 376 S.E.2d at 812. 

 Credible evidence supports the commission's finding that 

Davis was discharged for misconduct. She deliberately violated a 
- 5 - 

school policy with which she was familiar. In dangerous weather 

conditions, she discharged seven children at an unauthorized 

location without waiting to ensure their safety and well-being. 

As a result of her actions, these children were exposed to 

potentially life-threatening conditions. 

 "Once the employer has borne the burden of showing 

misconduct connected with the work, . . . the burden shifts to 

the employee to prove circumstances in mitigation of his or her 

conduct." Id. at 635, 376 S.E.2d at 811. Evidence of mitigation 

may appear in many forms which, singly or in combination, to some 

degree explain or justify the employee's conduct. Various 

factors to be considered may include: the importance of the 

business interest at risk; the nature and purpose of the rule; 

prior enforcement of the rule; good cause to justify the 

violation; and consistency with other rules. 

Id.

 The record supports the commission's finding that Davis 

presented insufficient evidence of mitigating circumstances. 

When the weather conditions of September 3 are considered, the 

employer's policy regarding authorized bus stops was indelibly 

linked with the safety and welfare of the children. Davis 

presented no evidence that she knew Harper or that Harper was 

trustworthy. Davis also failed to assure that the children 

followed her instruction to call their parents from Harper's home 

and that the parents were able to get their children. 
- 6 - 

Accordingly, the commission did not err in disqualifying her from 

receiving unemployment benefits. 

 Affirmed.