Long v. Hudsonville Body Shop, Inc.
Digest No. 12.145
Cite as: Long v Hudsonville Body Shop, Kent County Circuit Court, No. 09-06869-AE (November 20, 2009).
Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Jason Long
Employer: Hudsonville Body Shop, Inc.
Docket no.: 203605W
Date of decision: November 20, 2009
HOLDING: The Board’s decision that Long was discharged for misconduct connected with his work was not contrary to law and was supported by substantial evidence. Long willfully and intentionally disregarded Hudsonville Body’s interests when he violated the company’s drug policy by offering to obtain illegal drugs for an employee of another company in the same building.
FACTS: On November 15, 2008, Long’s car broke down on his way to work. Mike Zwak, a tow-truck driver employed by Hudsonville Towing, came to tow Long’s car. Hudsonville Body and Hudsonville Towing operated out of the same building and both referred business to each other. Both companies provided services for law enforcement. Zwak alleged that Long initiated a conversation where Long asked if Zwak smoked “the good stuff” and that he could get Zwak some. Zwak declined. The owner of Hudsonville Body learned of this incident and terminated Long’s employment pursuant to its policies prohibiting the use, sale, or possession of illegal drugs on or off the premises during business hours. Long denied offering to sell Zwak drugs.
DECISION: The circuit court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision, which found the claimant to be disqualified for benefits because of misconduct under Section 29(1)(b) of the MES Act.
RATIONALE: Hudsonville Body strongly emphasized to Long their illegal drug policy and their business relationship with law enforcement. While Hudsonville Towing was a separate company, they operated out of the same building as Hudsonville Body and the two referred business to each other. Long argued that, under Hagenbuch v. Plainwell Paper Company, while an employer can fire an employee for actions while not working and not on the employer’s premises, the actions are not necessarily misconduct in connection with his work under the Act. The circuit court reasoned that in some cases an employee’s actions, while not working and not on the premises, might not be misconduct connected with his work, Hagenbuch does not mandate such a finding in every case.
Digest Author: Adam Kleven, Michigan Law, Class of 2018
Digest Updated: 1/6/2016