Court Opinion

ID: 9719582
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 07:56:25.714133+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:24:08.086222
License: Public Domain

HABHAB, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. My main disagreement with the majority opinion is with its application of the standard of review. In reversing, the majority makes a de novo review of the facts and then decides differently from those made by the agency. This de novo standard of review is incorrect in these cases. See Meyer v. Employment Appeal Board, 441 N.W.2d 766, 767 (Iowa 1989).
The sole question for the court is whether substantial evidence supports the administrative law judge’s decision the claimant’s actions constituted disqualifying misconduct. The agency decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record if a reasonable mind, viewing the record as a whole, would accept the record as adequate to reach the conclusion. Aluminum Company of America v. Employment Appeal Board, 449 N.W.2d 391 (Iowa 1989). The court must broadly and liberally apply the Board’s findings to uphold rather than defeat the Board’s decision. Id. at 394 (emphasis added). The possibility of drawing two inconsistent conclusions from evidence does not prevent the agency decision from being supported by substantial evidence. Henry v. Iowa Department of Job Service, 391 N.W.2d 731 (Iowa 1986).
*435The question before the administrative law judge and the Employment Appeal Board was whether Diggs’ actions were misconduct as defined by the Iowa Administrative Code and the Iowa Code. The question before us is whether substantial evidence supports their decision Diggs’ actions were misconduct as defined. See id. at 736-38. It is not our job to find the facts, but only to correct errors of law by the Board. Meyer v. Employment Appeal Board, 441 N.W.2d at 767.
The record before us shows Diggs accosted a fellow employee over the lunch hour concerning statements that employee had made about Diggs at the workplace. Diggs allegedly grabbed the other employee and threatened her. These actions clearly violated a known work policy against fights between employees.
The two women returning to the workplace after lunch would undoubtedly carry their resentments with them. The altercation is likely to have an adverse effect on the workplace. The employer has an understandable interest against allowing employees to settle their differences in this manner.
Hard feelings sometimes spill over into physical violence, threats, and abuse. When this occurs between employees, the employer has a right to be concerned, and when they occur in such a close proximity as to threaten relations in the workplace, the employer may justifiably take necessary disciplinary action. See Myers v. Employment Appeal Board, 462 N.W.2d 734, 737-38 (Iowa App.1990).
The administrative law judge found Diggs' actions constituted misconduct as defined, thus disqualifying her from unemployment benefits. The Employment Appeal Board affirmed. I determine substantial evidence supports their decision. I would affirm.
DONIELSON, J., joins this dissent.