Court Opinion

ID: 9654926
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 18:54:41.024776+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:14.691565
License: Public Domain

SACKETT, C.J.
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. I would affirm the agency and the district court. The district court concluded that:
Given the nature of the April 11th, 2006, disciplinary warning notice there can be no doubt that any absences for illness after April 11th without an accompanying doctor’s note would not be tolerated by the employer. Whether or not Ms. Gaborit felt the doctor’s note requirement was reasonable, she testified that she knew on May 15, 2006, that she needed a doctor’s note in order for her absence to be considered as excused. Clearly, there is substantial evidence that Ms. Gaborit’s failure to produce a doctor’s note was intentional and constituted substantial misconduct which, given the context of her actions, is serious enough to warrant denial of benefits. The agency’s application of the law to the facts is not irrational, illogical, or wholly unjustifiable. Nor is the agency’s decision unreasonable, arbitrary, capricious, or an abuse of discretion.
I agree with the district court on this issue and do not find that the May 15 absence was excused as a matter of law.