Opinion ID: 2014781
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Conduct within ARSD 55:01:12:05(2).

Text: [¶ 6.] The DOT relied on ARSD 55:01:12:05(2) to discharge Wendell. That regulation states: Disciplinary action may be taken for just cause as reported to the commissioner, including the just causes listed in this section:       (2) The employee has committed any act of brutality, cruelty, or abuse to an inmate, prisoner, resident, or patient of an institution, to a person in custody, or to other persons, provided the act committed was not necessarily or lawfully done in self-defense, to protect the lives of others, or to prevent the escape of a person lawfully in custody;.... ARSD 55:01:12:05(2) (emphasis added). The question is whether the or to other persons language encompasses conduct outside the scope of employment. [¶ 7.] Under the canon of statutory construction known as ejusdem generis, where general words follow the enumeration of particular classes of things, the general words will be construed as applying only to things of the same general class as those enumerated. Black's Law Dictionary 517 (6th ed 1990); see also Grievance of O'Neill, 347 N.W.2d at 889 (noting that general words are interpreted as applying to the same types of things as those specified). Accordingly, we discern the meaning of or to other persons by examining the language surrounding and associated with the phrase. Section (2) subjects to discipline an employee whose conduct is abusive to inmates, prisoners, residents, patients, persons in custody, or other persons. The overall import of the rule encompasses activities occurring within the scope of employment. Wendell's acts were not perpetrated on the job or in connection with his work for the DOT. [¶ 8.] In another context, we have found that, for employee misconduct to be the basis for denial of entitlements, the misconduct must have some nexus with the employee's work. Kleinsasser v. City of Rapid City, 440 N.W.2d 734, 737 (S.D.1989)(denial of unemployment benefits for misconduct)(quoting Matter of Kotrba, 418 N.W.2d 313, 316 (S.D.1988)). Did Wendell's actions have a nexus to his duties as a DOT employee? To be guilty of contributing to the abuse or delinquency of a minor, an individual's acts must fall within the ambit of § 26-9-1, which states: Any person who, by any act, causes, encourages or contributes to the abuse, the neglect or the delinquency of a child, or any person, other than a parent who, by any act, causes a child to become a child in need of supervision, ... or who is, in any manner, responsible therefor, is guilty of a Class 1 misdemeanor. By virtue of his plea under this statute, Wendell either caused, encouraged or contributed to the abuse or neglect of a child. This behavior had no connection to his duties with the DOT, nor was there any apparent nexus between his job and the acts constituting his misdemeanor. We cannot give the phrase or to other persons meaning beyond the scope of the employment limitation manifest in the regulation. As his conduct occurred outside of his job duties, we affirm the circuit court's conclusion that Wendell did not violate ARSD 55:01:12:05(2). [2] [¶ 9.] Affirmed. [¶ 10.] MILLER, Chief Justice, and SABERS, AMUNDSON, and GILBERTSON, Justices, concur.