Court Opinion

ID: 9861501
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-25 00:07:31.547096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T11:28:35.899841
License: Public Domain

JUSTICE RAKOWSKI, specially concurring: I agree that Figueroa was denied a full and impartial hearing. I write separately to express my belief that Figueroa’s second issue should also be addressed. Figueroa has raised two issues in this appeal: 1. Whether Figueroa was denied a full and impartial hearing; and 2. Whether Figueroa’s alleged conduct harmed the employer within the meaning of section 602(A) of the Unemployment Insurance Act (820 ILCS 405/602(A) (West 1996)). As I stated, I agree with the majority with respect to issue one. I respectfully submit that we should also address issue two, where Figueroa contends that the alleged act of stealing five lemons does not constitute harm within the meaning of section 602(A). Although we cannot answer the fact question of whether he stole the lemons, we can determine whether this alleged act constitutes harm. Because no facts are in dispute, it is a question of law. The majority elects not to decide this issue, referring to it as a hypothetical fact situation. Although it is hypothetical in nature, it may be the dispositive issue in this case. Figueroa is contending that assuming the employer’s claims are true, that he stole the lemons, he is nevertheless entitled to benefits because stealing five lemons is not harm to the employer as a matter of law. If Figueroa is correct in his contention, he prevails outright. There would be no need to remand. If he is incorrect, only a fact question would remain. I respectfully submit that we should address this issue.