Opinion ID: 2276756
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Evidence of Gross Misconduct

Text: Giles argues that the facts presented in his case do not support a finding of gross misconduct within the meaning of D.C.Code § 46-111(b)(1) and the regulations. [5] The burden to prove misconduct or gross misconduct is on the employer. See The Washington Times, 724 A.2d at 1218 (citing 7 DCMR § 312.2). The issue before us is whether the facts found by the agency support a finding of gross misconduct within the meaning of D.C.Code § 46-111(b)(1), as elucidated by the regulations. The benefit claims examiner found from the evidence presented by American University that Giles was terminated due to poor work performance and an unwillingness to perform his tasks in a timely and professional manner. Specifically, the examiner found that after being warned, Giles would not contact his supervisor if he encountered a problem, fail[ed] to turn in work tickets daily and fail[ed] to evaluate a plumbing situation effectively. The examiner determined these actions to be willful and deliberate so as to constitute gross misconduct pursuant to § 46-111(b)(1). The Appeals Examiner specifically found Giles' supervisor credible in his determination that Giles was a highly skilled plumber capable of carrying out his assignments. The Appeals Examiner also credited Giles' supervisor's version of the events leading to termination. The Appeals Examiner further found that Giles did not complete his assigned tasks in a timely or a satisfactory manner, despite verbal and written warnings. The OAR summarily affirmed the Appeals Examiner's decision that Giles' poor work performance amounted to gross misconduct.