Opinion ID: 874033
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: McNulty's Failure to Report Constituted Willful Conduct

Text: Every week for approximately twenty-seven (27) weeks, McNulty filed a claim for benefits. He filed his original claim online and then used the Department's Tele-claim system for the remainder of the weeks at issue. Every time McNulty filed a claim report, the system asked the claimant [d]id you work for any employers during the week claimed, including National Guard or Reserve? At the hearing, McNulty acknowledged that he read and or heard the instructions to report all employment and earnings. [1] (Emphasis added). When Appeals Examiner Shelton asked McNulty why he did not report any of his earnings from working at the Sawtooth Club, McNulty replied [b]ecause they were an insignificant amount of money and they weren't affecting the benefit. Throughout the entire investigation, McNulty repeatedly made contradictory claims that the Department led him to believe that he did not have to report earnings that were of an insignificant amount. During an initial interview by the Department, McNulty was asked why [he] fail[ed] to report earnings during the weeks in question and he replied I thought I didn't have to report anything as long as I had not earned over $120. When the IDOL interviewer asked him to identify who told him that information, McNulty explained that he read it on the internet, but could not recall when or where. Then, at the hearing, McNulty testified that he failed to report his employment because an IDOL representative told him that he could earn up to $284.00 per week without affecting his benefit amount. On appeal, McNulty argues that even if his failure to report his employment and earnings was material, his failure to report was not willful because he was not trying to obtain benefits to which he was not entitled and he did not intend to do anything consciously wrong. In his brief to the Court, McNulty asserts that he misunderstood the Department's question asking did you work for any employers to mean did he work enough that he earned an amount large enough to affect his benefit. In Meyer, this Court explained that it construes the term willful as follows: (Willfully) implies simply a purpose or willingness to commit the act or make the omission referred to. It does not require any intent to violate law, in the sense of having an evil or corrupt motive or intent. It does imply a conscious wrong, and may be distinguished from an act maliciously or corruptly done, in that it does not necessarily imply an evil mind, but is more nearly synonymous with `intentionally,' `designedly,' `without lawful excuse,' and therefore not accidental. Meyer, 99 Idaho at 761, 589 P.2d at 96 (quoting Archbold v. Huntington, 34 Idaho 558, 565, 201 P. 1041, 1043 (1921)). The Court further reiterated that the legislature intended to disqualify claimants who knowingly or consciously fail to report material facts, but not to punish accidental omissions due to negligence or misunderstanding. Id. This Court upholds the Commission's finding that McNulty's failure to report his employment was willful. The question posed by the Department was clear and unambiguousdid you work for any employers? Although McNulty claims that he was informed by an IDOL representative that he could earn up to $284.00 without affecting his benefits, he did not assert that he was told he did not have to report his employment. Moreover, the Department clearly communicated that all earnings, regardless of whether they impact one's benefits, must be reported when filing a claim. Each time McNulty filed a claim for unemployment benefits, the Department's system asked him to report any employment and earnings and warned him that if he failed to report all employment and earnings it could be considered fraud and his benefits could be denied. McNulty also acknowledged receiving the Department's Unemployment Insurance Claimant's Benefit Rights, Responsibilities, and Filing Instructions booklet (the Booklet) and reading the pages which instructed him to report all work and all earnings. The Booklet also explained that claimants can work part-time and still receive benefits, but that benefits may be reduced depending upon the claimant's earnings. Specifically, the Booklet stated: You can earn up to one-half of your weekly benefit amount and still receive the full weekly benefit amount for the week. However, you must still report all amounts earned each week, even if gross earnings are less than half your weekly benefit amount. Based on the information provided and the clarity of the question, McNulty was properly informed of his obligation to report any employment and all earnings, regardless of their amount or impact on his benefits. Moreover, McNulty had filed for unemployment benefits in the past and was aware of the process. Nevertheless, he knowingly failed to report his employment and his wages because he believed they would not impact his benefits. McNulty fails to understand that whether his earnings impact his benefits is not a determination for him to make. It is the duty of the Department of Labor to make benefit determinations. Furthermore, although McNulty testified that he failed to report his employment due to the insignificant amount of his earnings, he had no justification for his failure to report his earnings during the weeks that he earned over $284.00. At the hearing, McNulty acknowledged that there were four weeks in which his earnings amounted to more than $284.00, which is what he considered the threshold amount necessary to obligate reporting, yet still reported that he had not worked that week (effectively reporting $0 as his earnings). Specifically, the record shows that McNulty earned $360.25 for the week ending May 2, 2009; $409.50 for the week ending May 9, 2009; $381.25 for the week ending October 10, 2009; and $330.78 for the week ending October 31, 2009. Yet, when Appeals Examiner Shelton asked him why he did not report his earnings during those weeks, McNulty replied I don't have a good reason. Maybe I just didn't keep track of the money that I earned. McNulty's claimed misunderstanding lacks credibility because McNulty did not even follow his own rules. Even when he earned more than $284.00, he still reported no employment and no earnings. Even at oral argument, McNulty's counsel conceded that he could not think of any reason why a claimant would not report his employment earnings if he truly believed that they would not impact his benefits, other than to avoid inquiry by the Department. Therefore, the Court finds that there is substantial and competent evidence in the record to support the Commission's finding that McNulty's failure to report was willful and not because of a genuine misunderstanding of his obligation to report all employment and earnings.