Court Opinion

ID: 9939813
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2024-02-12 20:17:39.253205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:42:00.233074
License: Public Domain

VERMONT SUPREME COURT                                                            Case No.          23-AP-281
109 State Street
Montpelier VT 05609-0801
802-828-4774
www.vermontjudiciary.org

Note: In the case title, an asterisk (*) indicates an appellant and a double asterisk (**) indicates a cross-
appellant. Decisions of a three-justice panel are not to be considered as precedent before any tribunal.

                                           ENTRY ORDER

                                  FEBRUARY TERM, 2024

David DeGrechie* v. Department of Labor }                APPEALED FROM:
(Chuck’s Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc.) }
                                           }             Employment Security Board
                                           }             CASE NO. 02-23-047-01

                           In the above-entitled cause, the Clerk will enter:

       Claimant appeals an Employment Security Board decision concluding that he was
discharged from employment for misconduct associated with his work and is therefore
disqualified from receiving certain unemployment benefits. We affirm.

         The record indicates the following. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits after he
was discharged from his employment at Chuck’s Heating & Air Conditioning, Inc. A
Department of Labor claims adjudicator reviewed his claim and determined that he was
discharged for misconduct connected with his work because his continued absenteeism or
tardiness, despite warnings, showed substantial disregard for employer’s business interests. As a
result, the claims adjudicator concluded that claimant was disqualified from benefits for a period
of weeks and subject to a maximum-benefit cap under 21 V.S.A. §§ 1340(b) and 1344(a)(1)(A).
Claimant appealed the determination to an administrative law judge (ALJ).

        After a hearing at which claimant and employer each presented evidence, the ALJ issued
a written decision affirming the claims adjudicator’s determination.* Claimant appealed to the
Board. The Board issued a written decision containing the following modified factual findings.
See 21 V.S.A. § 1332 (providing that Board may modify ALJ’s findings and conclusions “[u]pon
the basis of evidence previously submitted in the case”).

        *
         The ALJ made findings about an October 2022 incident involving claimant and a
coworker not mentioned in the underlying determination and concluded that claimant’s behavior
on this occasion was also a basis for his discharge for misconduct connected to his work.
However, the Board concluded only that claimant was discharged for misconduct associated with
his employment due to excessive absenteeism. See 21 V.S.A. § 1332 (authorizing Board to
modify ALJ’s conclusions). Because the Board decision claimant appeals does not rest on
findings about the October 2022 incident, we do not discuss it further or consider claimant’s
arguments relative to the incident.
        Claimant worked full-time for employer as a field supervisor prior to his November 2022
discharge. Employer did not have a progressive discipline policy, and its attendance policy—
which claimant had acknowledged—warned that “excessive absenteeism or tardiness will result
in discipline, up to and including termination.” From the beginning of August 2022 through
early November of that year, claimant incurred seventeen “unexcused” absences, only two of
which were attributable to illness. The absences were considered unexcused because claimant
did not provide at least two weeks’ advance notice. Instead, claimant generally informed
employer in the morning that he would not be coming to work that day. Claimant was staying in
employer-provided hotel accommodations during many of these absences. He believed that
employer had instructed employees to take more time off due to business being slow. However,
claimant’s superiors spoke to him about his inconsistent attendance during this period, informing
him that it was negatively impacting the projects he was tasked with supervising.

       On the basis of these findings, the Board affirmed the ALJ’s conclusion the employer met
its burden to demonstrate that claimant was discharged for misconduct associated with his
employment. This appeal followed.

        In the absence of a clear showing to the contrary, decisions within the Board’s expertise
are presumed “correct, valid, and reasonable.” Bouchard v. Dep’t of Emp. & Training, 174 Vt.
588, 589 (2002) (mem.). “We will affirm the Board’s findings if they are supported by credible
evidence, even if there is substantial evidence to the contrary[,]” and will affirm its conclusions
where fairly and reasonably supported by the findings. St. Martin v. Dep’t of Labor, 2012 VT 8,
¶ 6, 191 Vt. 577.

       Employer bore the burden of showing that claimant was discharged for misconduct
connected with his work. Allen-Pentkowski v. Dep’t of Labor, 2011 VT 71, ¶ 6, 190 Vt. 556
(mem.). Such misconduct disqualifies a claimant for benefits only if it exists “in substantial
disregard of the employer’s interest,” with such disregard being “either willful or culpably
negligent.” Favreau v. Dep’t of Emp. & Training, 151 Vt. 170, 172 (1989). Thus, we have
explained that “to constitute statutory misconduct, absenteeism must carry with it a wil[l]ful
disregard of the employer’s interest.” In re Therrien, 132 Vt. 535, 537 (1974).

         The Board concluded that employer met its burden because it showed that claimant
persisted in calling out of work without notice in the face of warnings that his unexcused
absences were negatively impacting the projects he was assigned to supervise. On appeal,
claimant does not challenge this conclusion, but instead argues that employer’s witnesses
testified untruthfully. Claimant asserts that: (1) for each of his absences, he called out sick;
(2) as a result of his sicknesses, he could not give two weeks’ notice; (3) he was told to take time
off during the period in question because work was slow; and (4) he accrued substantial vacation
time and therefore could not have been frequently absent.

       These arguments implicate the Board’s findings about the nature and frequency of
claimant’s absences and his knowledge of the impact they were having on employer’s interests.
However, each of those findings are supported by credible evidence. See St. Martin, 2012 VT 8,
¶ 6. The record includes a payroll calendar which reflects that, during the months in question,
claimant was marked “out sick” on only two days, while the remainder of his seventeen absences
without notice were designated “unexcused absence” or “vacation unexcused.” Employer
presented testimony from an employee who works in human resources and payroll; she
explained that employees are marked “out sick” on the payroll calendar based on the information
                                                 2
they enter in their timecards. Claimant’s own testimony did not support his assertion that he
called out sick during each of his unexcused absences. Though he testified to taking days off due
to illness, he also testified to taking days off to “deal with some things.” His testimony that he
took time off because employer encouraged employees to do so due to a lack of work cannot be
reconciled with a conclusion that claimant took time off only because he was ill. Crucially,
though the Board found that claimant believed he was instructed to take time off, it did not find
that claimant believed he was instructed to take time off without giving advance notice. Instead,
it found that claimant was on notice that his unexcused absences were negatively impacting the
projects he supervised but nonetheless persisted in calling out in the morning on days he was
scheduled to work. As employer’s witness explained in distinguishing between vacation days
taken with and without notice, when an employee does not give notice, employer cannot ensure
that there is adequate coverage for the project to which the employee is assigned.

        Thus, the Board’s findings were not clearly erroneous. See Kelley v. Dep’t of Labor
(Maple Leaf Farm Ass’n, Inc.), 2014 VT 74, ¶ 6, 197 Vt. 155 (“We will uphold the Board’s
findings of fact unless they are clearly erroneous[.]”). Though claimant argues that employer’s
witnesses testified untruthfully, the credibility and persuasive effect of evidence are for the trier
of fact to determine, and “we do not reweigh the evidence on appeal.” Worrall v. Dep’t of
Labor, 2022 VT 46, ¶ 15; see also Cook v. Dep’t of Emp. & Training, 143 Vt. 497, 501 (1983).

       Affirmed.

                                                BY THE COURT:

                                                Paul L. Reiber, Chief Justice

                                                Karen R. Carroll, Associate Justice

                                                William D. Cohen, Associate Justice

                                                 3