Court Opinion

ID: 9627696
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 08:50:59.13417+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:06:49.263834
License: Public Domain

Chief Justice TROUT,
dissenting.
Because I believe the record provides substantial and competent evidence to support the Commission’s findings, I must respectfully dissent.
The sole issue before this Court is whether Zero Defects discharged Smith for misconduct in connection with her employment. Following a random drug test, Zero Defects terminated Smith for violating its drag and alcohol policy. The specific rule in question provides: “Being at work under the influence of alcohol or drugs may result in discharge for the first offense.” (emphasis added). The policy defines “under the influence” as follows:
“UNDER THE INFLUENCE” means being unable to perform work in a safe, efficient and productive manner; being in a physical or mental condition which creates a risk to the safety of the individual, other employees, the public, or company property; and/or having any detectable level of alcohol or illegal drugs in the body.
(emphasis added).
Whether an employee’s behavior constitutes misconduct or, more specifically here, whether an employer’s rules and expectations are reasonable is a question of fact. Folks v. Moscow Sch. Dist. No. 281, 129 Idaho 833, 838, 933 P.2d 642, 647 (1997). If supported by substantial and competent evidence, this Court will not disturb the Commission’s factual findings on appeal. Id. at 836, 933 P.2d at 645.
The Commission did not, as the majority finds, rely on Merriott v. Shearer Lumber Products, 127 Idaho 620, 903 P.2d 1317 (1995) in concluding that Zero Defects’ policy required a showing of impairment. Instead, the Commission found the “any detectable level” provision in the policy’s definition of “under the influence” to be “unreasonable as it relateds [sic] to the stated Philosophy of the Policy.” The Commission then struck that language, and applying the remainder of the definition, the Commission found that there was no evidence that Smith was unable to perform her work “in a safe, efficient and productive manner.” The definition, as modified by the Commission, clearly required a showing of impairment which the Commission merely found to be “consistent with the holding in Merriott.” Absent such a showing, Zero Defects failed to prove Smith was discharged for misconduct.
*888The Commission’s findings are supported by substantial and competent evidence and should not be disturbed. Zero Defects related to Smith the “philosophy” behind its policy as follows:
Zero Defects believes that a healthy and productive work force that is free from the effects of illegal drags and alcohol is important not only to Zero Defects, but also to our employees, our customers, and the local community. The abuse of drags and alcohol creates a variety of workplace problems including increased injuries, absenteeism, theft, added cost to benefit plans, a decrease in employee morale, productivity and safety, and a decline in quality of products and services. This drag and alcohol testing policy and procedure is intended to meet our objective of safeguarding Zero Defects and its employees and customers, and the local community, and to encourage employees to seek professional assistance for substance abuse problems.
(emphasis added). The policy also allowed employees to voluntarily admit “to a substance abuse problem.” An employee doing so may be given leave pending successful completion of a rehabilitation program. Moreover, the rule only provided that an employee “may” be terminated for a first offense. Consequently, the Commission could reasonably find that Zero Defects did not truly have a zero tolerance policy, and, therefore, the “any detectable level” provision in the definition of “under the influence” was unreasonable in light of Zero Defects’ overall drug and alcohol policy. Therefore, the Commission’s decision finding Smith eligible for unemployment insurance benefits should be affirmed.