Opinion ID: 2745313
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: standard of review

Text: In reviewing the decision of Workforce West Virginia’s Board and ALJ, we apply the same standard of review that was to be applied by the circuit court: The findings of fact of the Board of Review of the West Virginia Department of Employment Security [now known as Workforce West Virginia]16 are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo. 14 The circuit court’s order refers to clear and convincing evidence as the employer’s evidentiary burden and notes that an employee’s right to earn a living is a property right. The circuit court cites as authority Brown v. Gobble, 195 W.Va. 559, 466 S.E.2d 402 (1996), wherein we adopted a clear and convincing standard of proof for civil cases involving adverse possession of real property. Obviously, the case at bar does not involve the adverse possession of real estate. Moreover, the employer’s burden of proof in this instance was by a preponderance of the evidence, as discussed infra. 15 The circuit court also found that an employee has an “important property right” of working at a job “without fear of infliction of economic capital punishment where the worker has the right to strike, yet is discharged on weak, inconsistent and uncorroborated testimony.” However, Mr. McCarthy was not discharged for participating in a labor strike. The issue is whether Workforce West Virginia was correct in ruling that Mr. McCarthy was disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits based on its finding that he was discharged for gross misconduct. 16 Workforce West Virginia was previously known as the Bureau of Employment Security. See W.Va. Code § 21A-l-4 (2013). 10 Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W.Va. 561, 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994) (footnote added.). Accordingly, we examine the factual determination that Mr. McCarthy threw a jack rock from a picket line and into the path of moving vehicles transporting management employees to work under a clearly erroneous standard, and we examine the legal determination that such action constitutes gross misconduct under a de novo standard. We proceed to address the parties’ arguments with these standards in mind.17