Decess v. Central State Community Service
Digest No. 12.137
Cite as: Decess v Central State Community Service, unpublished opinion of the Ingham County Circuit Court, issued December 14, 2010 (Docket No. 10-664-AE).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Tiffany L. Decess
Employer: Central State Community Service
Date of decision: December 14, 2010
HOLDING: The Carter v Employment Security Comm, 364 Mich 538 (1961) requirement of “carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests” requires more than mere negligent or inadvertent behavior.
FACTS: Claimant was employed by Central State Community Service as a direct caregiver to six developmentally disabled residents from December 6, 2006 until she was fired on November 3, 2008. She was fired for allegedly leaving a resident unattended in a running van for 3-5 minutes while she went inside the home. Claimant testified that the resident was never out of her sight.
The ALJ found Claimant disqualified for misconduct. This decision was affirmed by the Board of Review.
DECISION: The Circuit Court reversed the Board of Review decision because it was contrary to law and not supported by competent, material, and substantial evidence on the whole record.
RATIONALE: There was uncontradicted Claimant testimony in the record that Claimant followed the practices that she had been trained on. The employer offered no evidence to the contrary. There was no evidence produced by the employer that could prove statutory misconduct, whether deliberate or negligent.
Following the Carter standard, the Circuit Court found that even if Claimant had been negligent, Carter requires the violation be more than negligent or inadvertent. There was no evidence in the record to support a finding that Claimant had acted with carelessness amounting to a disregard of her employer’s interests.
Finally, the Circuit Court relied on Razmus v Kirkhof Transformer, 137 Mich App 311 (1984) and Linski v Employment Security Commission, 358 Mich 239; 99 NW2d 795 (1966) to find that violating an employer’s rules is not, per se, misconduct within the meaning of the statute.
Digest author: Andrea M. Frailey, Michigan Law, Class of 2017
Digest updated: 10/31/2017