Case Name: Alfred Lee MAJOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINTAS/RED STICK, et al., Defendants-Appellees
Court: Louisiana Court of Appeal
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1995-12-06
Citations: 665 So. 2d 153
Docket Number: No. 94-713
Parties: Alfred Lee MAJOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINTAS/RED STICK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
Judges: Before KNOLL, COOKS, WOODARD, DECUIR and AMY, JJ.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 665
Pages: 153–158

Head Matter:
Alfred Lee MAJOR, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CINTAS/RED STICK, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
No. 94-713.
Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.
Dec. 6, 1995.
Writ Denied March 8, 1996.
James Spruel Jr., for Alfred Lee Major.
Frank Theo Scott Jr., for Cintas/Red Stick, et al.
Before KNOLL, COOKS, WOODARD, DECUIR and AMY, JJ.

Opinion:
liKNOLL, Judge.
A former employee of Cintas/Red Stick, Alfred Lee Major, appeals the trial court's affirmance of a decision of the Board of Review for the Office of Employment Security that denied him unemployment benefits. The trial court ruled that there was sufficient, competent evidence to support the denial of unemployment compensation benefits based on Major's drug use in contravention of his employer's policy. We affirm.
FACTS
The record shows that Major's last work day for Cintas was January 8,1993. A separation notice dated January 22, 1993, prepared and signed by Reggie Bostick, Cintas' plant manager, shows that Major was discharged from its employment because he "[tjested positive on [a] drug test." On February 18, 1993, Bostick confirmed this information in answers he provided the Louisiana Department of |2Labor; again he stated that the reason Major was separated from his employment with Cintas was that he "[t]est-ed positive on [a] drug test." Printed on the reverse side of the Department of Labor form that Bostick signed in February is the following statement:
Written information timely furnished by you will be given the same full consideration as any statement you or your duly authorized representative might make in person.
In a fact-finding interview conducted by the Department of Labor, Major signed a statement on March 16, 1993, in which he said, in part, "I failed my drug test for Cintas. I was not told why. I was not taking drugs or anything."
On March 24, 1993, Major was notified in writing by the Louisiana Department of Labor that his claim for unemployment benefits had been denied. In explaining the denial, the notice stated, in pertinent part:
YOU HAVE BEEN DISQUALIFIED FOR BENEFITS FROM 01/08/93 . SECTION 1601(10) OF THE LOUISIANA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY LAW PROVIDES THAT AN INDIVIDUAL WHO IS DISCHARGED FROM HIS EMPLOYMENT FOR THE USE OF ILLEGAL DRUGS SHALL BE DISQUALIFIED .
YOU WERE DISCHARGED FROM YOUR EMPLOYMENT BECAUSE YOU FAILED A DRUG TEST REQUIRED BY YOUR EMPLOYER PURSUANT TO A WRITTEN AND PROMULGATED POLICY OR BECAUSE YOU MISSED TOO MUCH WORK. YOUR DISCHARGE WAS FOR MISCONDUCT CONNECTED WITH THE EMPLOYMENT.
Major timely filed an appeal from his disqualification from benefits. A notice to appear for an appellate hearing on April 13, 1993, before Penelope Palermo, an administrative law judge, was mailed to the parties on March 30, 1993. The notice stated in part:
IN DETERMINING ELIGIBILITY FOR UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, THE ISSUE(S) BEFORE THE JUDGE IS (ARE) THE CORRECTNESS OF THE FOLLOWING:
JsTHE CLAIMANT WAS DISCHARGED AFTER FAILING A REQUIRED DRUG TEST OR BECAUSE HE MISSED TOO MUCH WORK. DISCHARGE WAS FOR MISCONDUCT CONNECTED WITH THE WORK. R.S. 23:1601(10) OR 1691(2).
When Major failed to appear at the hearing, the administrative law judge proceeded with the hearing and ruled that Major was disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits for violation of La.R.S. 23:1601(10). The Board of Review considered Major's appeal and affirmed the administrative law judge's rejection of his claim for benefits. Major then sought judicial review of the rejection of his claim. The district court found that the administrative law judge reviewed the record, and found sufficient evidence to disqualify Major from unemployment benefits based on his failure of Cintas' drug test. Accordingly, it upheld the denial of -unemployment benefits. This appeal followed.
APPELLATE REVIEW
Major appeals contending that the district court erred in finding that there was sufficient evidence presented to the administrative law judge to deny him unemployment compensation benefits.
The employer bears the burden of proving that the discharge resulted from disqualifying conduct. This issue is primarily factual and is left to the determination of the referee and the board of review. La.R.S. 23:1634. There must be legal and competent evidence to support the factual findings on which the administrative decision turns. Banks v. Administrator of Dept. of Employment, 393 So.2d 696 (La.1981). In administrative hearings, however, the usual rules of evidence do not apply and hearsay is generally admissible. La.R.S. 23:1631; Gardere v. Brown, 170 So.2d 758 (La.App. 1 Cir.1964). Nevertheless, the jurisprudence recognizes that hearsay evidence is not competent to overcome an employee's direct, contradictory \itestimony. Credit v. Whitfield, 488 So.2d 1064 (La.App. 2 Cir.1986), and cases cited therein. As exemplified in Thigpen v. Administrator, Office of Employment Security, 488 So.2d 1213 (La.App. 4 Cir.1986), the admission of hearsay as competent evidence in cases where the fact is contradicted would deprive the claimant of a fair opportunity to rebut or cross-examine the offending documents.
Under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1634(B) our judicial review must be confined to questions of law. In the absence of fraud, the findings of fact of the Board of Review are conclusive if supported by sufficient evidence. Washington v. Whitfield, 521 So.2d 542 (La.App. 4 Cir.1988). Our review does not entail the weighing of evidence, drawing of inferences, re-evaluation of evidence, or substituting the views of this court for those of the Board of Review as to the correctness of facts. Id.
From the outset, it is important in the case sub judice to recall that Major did not attend the initial administrative hearing that he provoked and he did not contradict that he tested positive for drugs. Pursuant to Rule 113 of the Louisiana Board of Review, the Louisiana Administrative Law Judge did not take testimony and instead chose to render a decision based on the record. Despite receiving notification of his right to reopen the hearing if he could show good cause for his failure to appear before the administrative law judge, Major did not request to reopen the hearing for him to testify or produce evidence.
It is likewise important that Major does not contend that fraud was involved in his dismissal. The record further shows that Major did not attack the integrity of the drug test in any of the statements he gave or the documents he filed with the Office of Employment Security. Additionally, in none of his filings with the Louisiana Department of Labor did Major ever deny that Cintas had a written |5promulgated drug policy. Furthermore, at no time in the district court or in argument before us does Major complain that the notices he received were inadequate to comply with the procedural due process requirements.
In light of these prefatory comments, we find no reason to exclude the claim form, the separation notice, and the compilation of Major's fact-finding interview as incompetent evidence. As depicted hereinabove, Major was not present at his hearing. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the consideration of this evidence deprived Major of a fair opportunity to rebut or cross-examine the offending documents.
In the case sub judice, Major stated in his fact-finding interview that he failed his drug test, but that he was not told why. Although the official drug report was not entered into evidence, the notices recited in the factual portion of this opinion indicated that the drug involved was illegal and there is no suggestion otherwise. As a factual basis for her decision, the administrative law judge referred to Cintas' written statements on the claim and separation forms that Major's drug test was positive. Under the provisions of La.R.S. 23:1601(10) drug use constitutes dischargeable misconduct per se. Under the facts of this ease, we find that the evidence sufficiently supports the administrative ruling. For the foregoing reasons, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs of this appeal are assessed to Major.
AFFIRMED.
COOKS, J., dissents and assigns written reasons.
AMY, J., dissents.