STATE OF WEST VIRGINIA
 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS
 

Christine A. Stefanko, 

Petitioner Below, Petitioner 

FILED 

June 28, 2013 

RORY L. PERRY II, CLERK 

SUPREME COURT OF APPEALS 

vs.) No. 12-0773 (Kanawha County 10-AA-97) OF WEST VIRGINIA 

West Virginia Bureau of Employment Programs, 

Board of Review, Mike Jones, James Dillon and 

Carole Bloom, as members of the Board of Review, 

Russell Frye, Acting Executive Director for Workforce 

West Virginia, and Quad Graphics, Inc., Respondents 

Below, Respondents 

MEMORANDUM DECISION 

Petitioner Christine A. Stefanko, by counsel Melinda Dugas, appeals the “Final Order 

Affirming Decision of Board of Review” entered by the Circuit Court of Kanawha County on 

May 14, 2012, denying petitioner unemployment compensation benefits. The employer Quad 

Graphics, Inc., by counsel David Mincer, filed a response. 

The Court has considered the parties’ briefs and the record on appeal. The facts and legal 

arguments are adequately presented, and the decisional process would not be significantly aided 

by oral argument. Upon consideration of the standard of review, the briefs, and the record 

presented, the Court finds no substantial question of law and no prejudicial error. For these 

reasons, a memorandum decision is appropriate under Rule 21 of the Rules of Appellate 

Procedure. 

Petitioner was employed by Quad Graphics, Inc., as an inkjet operator from January 23, 

2001, until she was terminated on January 11, 2010. Petitioner received both a verbal and written 

warning concerning her attendance issues. Subsequently, petitioner signed a “Last Chance 

Agreement” on December 21, 2009, which provided that petitioner would be immediately 

terminated for violating company policy in the next 120 days. Petitioner failed to appear for 

work on January 8, 2010, and was terminated on January 11, 2010, for violating the “Last 

Chance Agreement.” Petitioner filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits with 

WorkForce West Virginia. On January 29, 2010, a WorkForce Deputy issued an initial decision 

disqualifying petitioner from benefits for gross misconduct pursuant to West Virginia Code § 

21A-6-3(2). Petitioner timely appealed the deputy’s decision to the administrative law judge 

(“ALJ”). The ALJ affirmed the deputy’s decision and held that petitioner had received ample 

written warnings that absenteeism would lead to her termination and violated the “Last Chance 

Agreement.” Petitioner timely appealed to the Board of Review (“Board”), which issued an 

1


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

opinion on May 19, 2010, that affirmed and adopted the ALJ’s decision in its entirety. Petitioner 

appealed to the Circuit Court of Kanawha County, claiming the Board’s decision was erroneous.1 

On appeal, petitioner first argues that the circuit court erred affirming the ALJ’s decision 

without determining whether the “Last Chance Agreement” was a qualifying provision under 

West Virginia law. Petitioner next argues that the circuit court erred in affirming the ALJ’s 

decision when the findings were made without applying the rules of liberality afforded to 

claimants applying for unemployment compensation benefits. 

This Court has held: 

The findings of fact of the Board of Review of the West Virginia [Bureau of 

Employment Programs] are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing 

court believes the findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one 

purely of law, no deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the 

court is de novo. 

Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561, 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994).2 This Court has also held: 

Findings of fact by the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of 

Employment Security, in an unemployment compensation case, should not be set 

aside unless such findings are plainly wrong; however, the plainly wrong doctrine 

does not apply to conclusions of law by the Board of Review. 

Syl. Pt. 1, Kisamore v. Rutledge, 166 W.Va. 675, 276 S.E.2d 821 (1981). Upon our review, the 

Court concludes that the circuit court did not improperly review the Board’s decision nor did it 

err in affirming it. Petitioner had a number of absences, which resulted in receiving a written 

warning and a “Last Chance Agreement.” Subsequently, petitioner failed to appear for work after 

signing the “Last Chance Agreement.” Having reviewed the circuit court’s “Final Order 

Affirming Decision of Board of Review” entered on May 14, 2012, we hereby adopt and 

incorporate the circuit court’s well-reasoned findings and conclusions as to the assignments of 

error raised in this appeal. The Clerk is directed to attach a copy of the circuit court’s order to 

this memorandum decision. 

For the foregoing reasons, we find no error in the decision of the circuit court and its May 

14, 2012 order affirming the Board’s decision. 

Affirmed. 

1 The Court declines to address whether petitioner’s appeal was timely filed in circuit 

court pursuant to West Virginia Code § 21A-7-17 because respondent did not raise the issue as a 

cross-assignment of error. 

2 Prior to 2007, Workforce West Virginia was known as the Bureau of Employment 

Programs. See W.Va. Code § 21A-1-4 (2009). 

2


 

 

 

 

 

 

 

ISSUED: June 28, 2013 

CONCURRED IN BY: 

Chief Justice Brent D. Benjamin 

Justice Robin Jean Davis 

Justice Margaret L. Workman 

Justice Menis E. Ketchum 

Justice Allen H. Loughry II 

3