Court Opinion

ID: 9898018
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-11-14 19:27:50.885643+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:16:09.240695
License: Public Domain

NOTICE: SLIP OPINION
                      (not the court’s final written decision)

The opinion that begins on the next page is a slip opinion. Slip opinions are the
written opinions that are originally filed by the court.
A slip opinion is not necessarily the court’s final written decision. Slip opinions
can be changed by subsequent court orders. For example, a court may issue an
order making substantive changes to a slip opinion or publishing for precedential
purposes a previously “unpublished” opinion. Additionally, nonsubstantive edits
(for style, grammar, citation, format, punctuation, etc.) are made before the
opinions that have precedential value are published in the official reports of court
decisions: the Washington Reports 2d and the Washington Appellate Reports. An
opinion in the official reports replaces the slip opinion as the official opinion of
the court.
The slip opinion that begins on the next page is for a published opinion, and it
has since been revised for publication in the printed official reports. The official
text of the court’s opinion is found in the advance sheets and the bound volumes
of the official reports. Also, an electronic version (intended to mirror the
language found in the official reports) of the revised opinion can be found, free of
charge, at this website: https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports.
For more information about precedential (published) opinions, nonprecedential
(unpublished) opinions, slip opinions, and the official reports, see
https://www.courts.wa.gov/opinions and the information that is linked there.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                               FILED
                                                                              MAY 4, 2023
                                                                     In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                    WA State Court of Appeals Division III

                COURT OF APPEALS, DIVISION III, STATE OF WASHINGTON

       Kyle Smith,                                )           No.     38895-6-III
                                                  )
                           Appellant,             )
                                                  )
                     v.                           )           ORDER GRANTING MOTION
                                                  )           FOR RECONSIDERATION
       State of Washington                        )           AND AMENDING OPINION
       Employment Security Department,            )

                           Respondent.

             THE COURT has considered Respondent’s motion for reconsideration of our

       Smith v. State of Washington Employment Security Department No. 38895-6-III opinion.

             IT IS ORDERED, the motion for reconsideration is granted and the opinion shall

       be amended as follows: The paragraph on page 1022 that reads:

                    Kyle Smith principally challenges ESD commissioner’s finding of
             fact 12. Smith claims that the finding reads that he could not identify
             suitable work that he could perform from home. We conclude that this
             finding accurately reflects the administrative hearing evidence. Smith
             could not identify any telework available because Boeing did not offer any
             telework for Smith. Nevertheless, we conclude that the ESD commissioner
             erred when relying on the finding. Under the governor’s proclamation,
             Smith did not need to be actively seeking substitute work, regardless of
             whether the work was in person or telework.

       shall be amended to read:
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III
       Page 2

                    Kyle Smith principally challenges ESD commissioner’s finding of
             fact 12. Smith claims that the finding reads that he could not identify
             suitable work that he could perform from home. We conclude that this
             finding accurately reflects the administrative hearing evidence. Smith
             could not identify any telework available because Boeing did not offer any
             telework for Smith. Nevertheless, we conclude that the ESD commissioner
             erred when relying on the finding to determine Smith was not available for
             work. In doing so, the ESD commissioner necessarily imposed the
             requirement of actively seeking work on Smith by requiring that he identify
             suitable work he could have performed. Under the governor’s
             proclamation, Smith did not need to be actively seeking substitute work,
             regardless of whether the work was in person or telework.

             PANEL: Judges Fearing, Siddoway, Pennell

             FOR THE COURT:

                                                  ___________________________________
                                                  GEORGE B. FEARING, Chief Judge
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

                                                                            FILED
                                                                         MARCH 23, 2023
                                                                   In the Office of the Clerk of Court
                                                                  WA State Court of Appeals Division III

                  IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF WASHINGTON
                                     DIVISION THREE

       KYLE J. SMITH,                             )
                                                  )        No. 38895-6-III
                           Appellant,             )
                                                  )
             v.                                   )
                                                  )
       STATE OF WASHINGTON,                       )        PUBLISHED OPINION
       EMPLOYMENT SECURITY                        )
       DEPARTMENT,                                )
                                                  )
                           Respondent.            )

             FEARING, J. — This appeal asks whether an employee, who takes a leave of

       absence because of COVID-19 from work requiring a physical presence, may receive

       unemployment benefits. Appellant Kyle Smith temporarily left work, during the early

       months of the pandemic, because of an immunocompromised roommate. We hold that,

       despite the employee’s quarantine, Smith remained available for work because he could

       have performed telework. We reverse the Employment Security Department’s denial of

       unemployment benefits.

                                              FACTS

             Kyle Smith worked at Boeing as a crane operator, a position that required working

       on-site. Smith shared housing with an immunocompromised roommate.
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

             At the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic in 2020, Kyle Smith and his

       roommate agreed that the roommate would locate new housing because of the

       roommate’s susceptibility to severe complications if he contracted the COVID virus. In

       turn, Smith agreed to take a voluntary leave of absence from work until the roommate

       gained new housing.

             Kyle Smith submitted an unpaid leave of absence request, which Boeing

       approved. Smith took formal leave on May 11, 2020. Boeing did not offer Smith

       alternative remote work while he quarantined. Smith returned to work on June 10, 2020,

       soon after his roommate vacated the shared housing.

             During his leave of absence, Smith applied for unemployment benefits with the

       State Employment Security Department (ESD). ESD found that he was unemployed, but

       available for work during his leave of absence. ESD ordered approval of benefits from

       May 10 to June 13.

                                           PROCEDURE

             Boeing filed a challenge to ESD’s award of unemployment benefits. An ESD

       administrative law judge (ALJ) conducted a hearing on the challenge.

             During the administrative hearing, the ALJ questioned Kyle Smith:

                     THE COURT: Okay. All right. So while you were on leave and
             filing for unemployment, um, was there any type of other job that you
             could do?
                     MR. SMITH: Uh, there was not, Your Honor.
                     THE COURT: Okay. Um, did you refuse any job offers?

                                                  2
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

                     MR. SMITH: I did not.
                     THE COURT: Were you willing to work all hours and any shifts for
             any jobs that you were capable of doing?
                     MR. SMITH: Yes, I was.
                     THE COURT: Were you in school at all during the weeks you filed
             for benefits?
                     MR. SMITH: I was not.
                     THE COURT: Did you have adequate transportation to and from a
             job if you were going to be offered one?
                     MR. SMITH: Yes, I did, Your Honor.
                     THE COURT: Great. And did you have any medical issues yourself
             that would, um, preclude you from working full time?
                     MR. SMITH: Uh, no, Your Honor.

       Administrative Record (AR) at 20.

             The ALJ reversed ESD’s award of unemployment benefits to Kyle Smith. The

       ALJ entered the following findings of fact:

                   6. Claimant’s job as a crane operator had to be done in person. No
             telework was available.
                   ....
                   12. Claimant testified that there was no suitable work that he could
             do while quarantining, as his job type required him to work in person.

       AR at 68. The ALJ entered a conclusion of law that reads:

                    8. The undersigned concludes that Claimant was not available for
             work during weeks he applied for benefits as he could not identify any
             suitable work that he was available for, as he could not do his job as a crane
             operator from home while quarantining.

       AR at 69.

             Kyle Smith petitioned the ESD commissioner for review of the ALJ’s decision.

       The commissioner adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact, concluded that Smith was

                                                     3
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

       unavailable for telework, and denied him unemployment benefits.

              Kyle Smith appealed the ESD commissioner’s decision to the Thurston County

       Superior Court. The superior court transferred Smith’s appeal to the Court of Appeals for

       direct review under RCW 34.05.518.

                                        LAW AND ANALYSIS

              Kyle Smith argues that the ESD commissioner acted beyond its scope of authority

       by placing eligibility requirements on him beyond those demanded by law when the

       commissioner denied him unemployment benefits. We restate Smith’s challenge as

       simply being whether the commissioner erred rather than lacked authority.

              Kyle Smith’s right to receive unemployment benefits turns on a reading of several

       statutes. Under RCW 50.20.010(1)(c):

                     [a]n unemployed individual shall be eligible to receive waiting
              period credits or benefits with respect to any week in his or her eligibility
              period only if the commissioner finds that . . . [t]he individual is able to
              work, and is available for work in any trade, occupation, profession, or
              business for which the individual is reasonably fitted.

       (Emphasis added.) Under RCW 50.20.010(1)(c)(i), an individual is considered “available

       for work” if he or she is

                     ready, able, and willing, immediately to accept any suitable work
              which may be offered to him or her and must be actively seeking work
              pursuant to customary trade practices and through other methods when so
              directed by the commissioner or the commissioner’s agents.

       (Emphasis added.) RCW 50.20.100(1) defines “suitable work factors” as:

                                                     4
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

                    is employment in an occupation in keeping with the individual’s
             prior work experience, education, or training and if the individual has no
             prior work experience, special education, or training for employment
             available in the general area, then employment which the individual would
             have the physical and mental ability to perform.

             Despite highlighting portions of two of the statutes, we observe that, because of

       the pandemic, the Washington State governor suspended the provisions. Governor Jay

       Inslee, on March 25, 2020, suspended RCW 50.20.010(1)(c)’s requirement of actively

       seeking employment. Governor’s Proclamation 20-30 (2020) read in part:

                     WHEREAS, requiring unemployed Washington workers to search
             for work in order to maintain unemployment benefit eligibility is
             counterproductive to the state’s efforts to slow the spread of COVID-19,
             and can be futile given the economic slowdown and reduction in business
             activity; and
                     WHEREAS, the worldwide COVID-19 pandemic and its
             progression in Washington State continues to threaten the life and health of
             our people as well as the economy of Washington State, and remains a
             public disaster affecting life, health, property or the public peace; and
                     NOW, THEREFORE, I, Jay Inslee, Governor of the state of
             Washington, as a result of the above-noted situation, and under Chapters
             38.08, 38.52 and 43.06 RCW, do hereby proclaim that a State of
             Emergency continues to exist [and] . . . that Proclamation 20-05 is amended
             to waive or suspend specified statutes that prevent, hinder or delay
             necessary action by the Washington State Employment Security
             Department in providing unemployment compensation to the significant
             number people in Washington State suffering from layoffs resulting from
             the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic. . . .
                     FURTHERMORE, based on the above situation and under the
             provisions of RCW 43.06.220(2)(g), I also find that strict compliance with
             the following statutory obligations or limitations will prevent, hinder or
             delay necessary action by the Washington State Employment Security
             Department in providing unemployment compensation to the significant
             number of people in Washington State suffering from layoffs resulting from
             the economic downturn caused by the COVID-19 pandemic, and that, for

                                                   5
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

              claims filed on or after March 8, 2020, the following specific statutory
              provisions are hereby waived and suspended until midnight on April 24,
              2020:
                     1. RCW 50.20.010(1)(c)(i) – the following language only: “and must
              be actively seeking work pursuant to customary trade practices and through
              other methods when so directed by the commissioner or the commissioner’s
              agents;” and
                     2. RCW 50.20.240 – in its entirety.

       Proclamation by Governor Jay Inslee, No. 20-30 (Wash. Mar. 25, 2020),

       https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/20-30%20COVID-

       19%20-%20ESD-Job%20Requirements%20%28tmp%29.pdf. On July 4, 2021,

       Governor Inslee terminated the suspension of the requirement of actively seeking work.

       Proclamation by Governor Jay Inslee, No. 20-30.12 (Wash. June 21, 2021),

       https://www.governor.wa.gov/sites/default/files/proclamations/proc_20-30.12.pdf.

              Kyle Smith principally challenges ESD commissioner’s finding of fact 12. Smith

       claims that the finding reads that he could not identify suitable work that he could

       perform from home. We conclude that this finding accurately reflects the administrative

       hearing evidence. Smith could not identify any telework available because Boeing did

       not offer any telework for Smith. Nevertheless, we conclude that the ESD commissioner

       erred when relying on the finding. Under the governor’s proclamation, Smith did not

       need to be actively seeking substitute work, regardless of whether the work was in person

       or telework.

                                                    6
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

              We grant relief from an agency order if it is based on an erroneous interpretation

       or application of the law. RCW 34.05.570(3)(d); Hamel v. Employment Security

       Department, 93 Wn. App. 140, 144, 966 P.2d 1282 (1998). The ESD commissioner

       failed to properly apply Governor’s Proclamation 20-30.

              RCW 50.20.010(4) confirms the state government’s intent to provide

       unemployment benefits to workers caught in the COVID-19 pandemic. The Washington

       Legislature passed RCW 50.20.010(4) into law on January 27, 2021, and the bill became

       effective on February 8, 2021. This statutory subsection declares in relevant part:

                     During the weeks of a public health emergency, an unemployed
              individual may also meet the requirements of subsection (1)(c) of this
              section if:
                     (a) The unemployed individual is able to perform, available to
              perform, and actively seeking suitable work which can be performed for an
              employer from the individual's home; and
                     (b) The unemployed individual or another individual residing with
              the unemployed individual is at higher risk of severe illness or death from
              the disease that is the subject of the public health emergency because the
              higher risk individual:
                     ....
                     (ii) Has an underlying health condition, verified as required by the
              department by rule, that is identified as a risk factor for the disease that is
              the subject of the public health emergency by:
                     (A) The federal centers for disease control and prevention;
                     (B) The department of health; or
                     (C) The equivalent agency in the state where the individual resides.

              ESD contends that the 2021 statute should not be applied retroactively. Kyle

       Smith asks us to apply the statute retroactively. Because we may resolve this appeal on

       other grounds, we do not perform a retroactivity analysis.

                                                     7
For the current opinion, go to https://www.lexisnexis.com/clients/wareports/.

       No. 38895-6-III,
       Smith v. Employment Security

                                         CONCLUSION

             We reverse the ESD commissioner’s denial of unemployment benefits to Kyle

       Smith. We award Smith benefits from May 10 to June 13, 2020.

                                                _________________________________
                                                Fearing, J.

       WE CONCUR:

       ______________________________
       Siddoway, C.J.

       ______________________________
       Pennell, J.

                                                8