Hill v Department of Community Health – 16.76

Hill v Department of Community Health
Digest No. 16.76

Section 421.29; Section 421.32

Cite as: Hill v Dep’t of Community Health, unpublished opinion of the Wayne County Circuit Court, issued September 27, 2005 (Docket No. 05-514911-AE).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Darlene Hill
Employer: Department of Community Health; State of Michigan, Department of Labor & Economic Growth
Date of decision: September 27, 2005

View/download the full decision

HOLDING: When a claimant incorrectly thinks she is terminated and there is no evidence that 1) she acted with deliberate intent to evade her job responsibilities, or 2) her employer communicated its expectations to her, she has not committed misconduct by failing to appear at work, even if it was ignorant of her to believe that she was terminated. Section 421.32 provides that if within ten days the employer does not respond to the Agency’s request for information, the Agency shall decide the matter on the information provided. Furthermore, if the employer cannot show that it reasonably could not meet the ten day deadline, all benefits paid before the employer’s reply was received are deemed proper.

FACTS: The patient Claimant was tending indicated that he did not want her in his home because Claimant could not physically perform the necessary tasks. Claimant thought that the patient was her employer, and did not realize that the Department of Community Health was actually her employer. Claimant did not seek a new assignment and thought her job was terminated.  The employer did not respond to the Unemployment Insurance Agency’s request for information, did not send a representative to the hearing, and did not file a brief on appeal. The Board of Review denied benefits to Claimant on the basis of a voluntary quit.

DECISION: The claimant’s disqualification from benefits is reversed.

RATIONALE: Claimant was not told how to seek another assignment. She did not appear to have acted with deliberate intent to evade her job responsibilities, nor was she warned of any deficiencies in her performance. “Unless an employer’s expectations can be expected to ‘flow naturally’ from the employee relationship itself . . . they must be communicated to the employee before they can serve as a proper basis for a charge of misconduct.” McAlpin v Wood River Med. Ctr., 921 P2d 178, 183 (Idaho 1966) (quoting Davis v Howard O. Miller Co., 695 P2d 1231, 1233 (Idaho 1984)). There was not evidence of communication here. A decision “cannot rest upon mere conjecture or speculation.” Clements v Clements, 2 Mich App 370, 374 (1966). Therefore, because the employer has the burden to show misconduct, the lack of evidence of misconduct here compelled a finding for the employee. In addition, the testimony of even a single witness (in this instance, the claimant) can meet the substantial evidence standard.

Section 421.32 provides that if within ten days the employer does not respond to the Agency’s request for information, the Agency shall decide the matter on the information provided. Furthermore, if the employer cannot show that it reasonably could not meet the ten day deadline, all benefits paid before the employer’s reply was received are deemed proper.

Digest author: Winne Chen, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: October 30, 2017