Opinion ID: 2301134
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Misconduct, Gross or Simple

Text: The lack of findings on the contested issues of material fact that we have identified means we must remand the case to the OAH so that the necessary findings can be made. We entertain some doubt that substantial evidence exists in the record that would support findings justifying a conclusion that Scott was terminated for misconduct of any degree. Nonetheless, we do not sit as finders of fact, and we are not prepared to conclude that there is no possibility the requisite findings can be made, so we leave the question of simple misconduct to the OAH on remand in the first instance. Even assuming, however, that the ALJ can find that Scott intentionally disregarded her obligations to BRA in failing to come in for her interview within five days of the March 20 client-on-client abuse incident, we conclude as a matter of law that the record does not support a finding of gross misconduct, and we must reverse that holding. [30] Under our case law, even if Scott's conduct was willful, it was not so serious[] or egregious[] [31] as to amount to gross misconduct. BRA did not present evidence that Scott's failure to cooperate with its investigation was a repeat offense. Nor did BRA demonstrate that its business had suffered or in fact was threatened with grave consequences as a result of Scott's conduct. [32] Indeed, if Scott may have fallen short in some respect, it cannot be maintained that she refused to cooperate with the investigation entirely. It was Scott, after all, who reported the client-on-client abuse in the first place, and she promptly furnished a written report on the incident. BRA presented no evidence that her report was inadequate. In evaluating the significance of Scott's putative misconduct, the ALJ rightly emphasized the nature of the investigation and the fact that [Scott] worked with a vulnerable population of mentally and physically challenged individuals. There is no evidence, however, that the investigation or the well-being of BRA's clients was compromised in any way by Scott's failure to come in for an interview, or even that she had any significant information to impart. In this regard, it is telling that Jackson, in charge of the investigation, expended minimal effort to obtain Scott's supplemental statement: Jackson did not try to reschedule the interview, tell Scott there was a deadline of any kind, or even return her calls. Furthermore, the ALJ's finding that Scott jeopardized [BRA's] opportunities to provide continued contract services with the District Government for mentally and physically challenged individuals is not supported by substantial evidence. There is no evidence that BRA's contract or license was jeopardized. So far as appears, BRA submitted a satisfactory report of its investigation to DDS within the required time frame and the matter was closed. Further, Scott's conduct pales in comparison to cases in which this Court has upheld findings of gross misconduct. [33] As in Odeniran, we are aware of no published decision from this court holding that an employee was fired for gross misconduct for engaging in acts remotely comparable to those here. [34] Even if Scott's failure to come in for an interview within five days constituted deliberate non-cooperation, her conduct was far more similar to behavior we have held insufficient to satisfy the exacting standard for gross misconduct. [35]