JEFFERSON COUNTY BOARD OF EDUCATION APPELLANT v. JOYCE WATFORD APPELLEE (2013)

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED

OPINIONREVERSING AND REMANDING

The Jefferson County Board of Education appeals from a judgment of the Jefferson Circuit Court that reversed an administrative denial of unemployment benefits to Dr. Joyce Watford, an eighth-grade language arts teacher.   After our review, we reverse and remand.

In September 2009, Dr. Watford was transferred from Westport Middle School to Kennedy Metro Middle School.   Shortly after her transfer, in early October of 2009, Watford placed a call to the bookkeeper at Westport Middle School in which she used coarse and highly unprofessional language.   That same month, Watford served a five-day suspension attributed to her unprofessional behavior toward Westport Middle's bookkeeper.   In March 2010, Watford was reprimanded for failing to attend a scheduled, instructional meeting with Kennedy's assistant principal, Laura Dalton.   In April 2010, she served another five-day suspension attributed both to her failure to submit grades as instructed and to her failing to attend another scheduled meeting.   A few weeks later, Watford served yet another five-day suspension attributed to her refusal to leave Dalton's office following a tense encounter involving a school security guard.

Early in the next school year (the fall of 2010), Watford was ordered to serve another five-day suspension attributed to her failure to submit lesson plans and other materials on a timely basis and to her continuing aggressive and unprofessional manner toward Dalton, the assistant principal.

According to Kennedy's principal, Don Reid, Watford also refused to prepare for and to participate in instructional meetings scheduled for September 7 and September 9, 2010.   On September 21, Reid directed Watford to attend an instruction conference scheduled for the following day at 2:05 p.m. On September 22, Reid sent an electronic message confirming the date and time of the scheduled meeting.   Watford advised Reid that the meeting was a waste of her time and indicated that she would not attend.   She also referred to a medical appointment, but the appointment was scheduled after school hours and did not conflict with the conference scheduled with Reid. Nevertheless, Watford did not appear for the conference.

On September 24, Watford attended a meeting with Reid to discuss her refusal to follow reasonable directives.   On September 27, she was reassigned to non-teaching duties.   She was terminated by the Board of Education on October 13, 2010, for insubordination and conduct unbecoming a teacher.

Watford applied for unemployment insurance benefits on October 17, 2010.   She was denied benefits in a notice of determination dated November 3, 2010.

The administrative denial was based upon the conclusion that Watford was terminated “for refusing to comply with a request made by the employer.”   Watford's local unemployment office was persuaded that the employer's request “was reasonable and necessary in legitimate pursuit of business interests” and that Watford had not “shown good cause for refusing to comply with the request.”   The office concluded that benefits were not payable since Watford had been terminated for misconduct connected with her work.   Watford timely appealed this initial determination to a Referee assigned by the Kentucky Unemployment Insurance Commission (also and interchangeably KUIC).

Following an evidentiary hearing, the Referee affirmed the determination that Watford was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.   The Referee concluded that “evidence of probative value establishes that claimant refused to follow the reasonable instructions provided by the school principal.”   Watford appealed the Referee's decision to the KUIC.

In an order dated September 26, 2011, the KUIC unanimously affirmed the Referee's decision.   The KUIC limited its determination to a consideration of the events of September 7, 2010;  September 9, 2010;  and September 22, 2010.   In its order, the KUIC concluded, in pertinent part, as follows:

[O]n September 7, 2010, and September 9, 2010, the claimant failed to participate in an instructional conference and refused to answer questions or participate in the discussion.   This behavior showed a refusal to obey reasonable instructions․

Finally, on September 22, 2010, the claimant failed to attend a meeting with school officials, after being given a directive to do so by Principal Reid on September 21, 2010, and September 22, 2010.   Claimant argues she was busy and had an appointment that afternoon with a doctor.   However, the meeting was to occur at 2:05 p.m. The time of the [meeting] was during the school day and claimant failed to adequately explain how she could not have reasonably showed up in the principal's office at that time․  This defiant act of refusing to meet with the principal, her primary supervisor, constituted misconduct connected with the work.   She clearly refused to obey reasonable instructions, an example of misconduct set forth in [the statute].   Accordingly, claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

Order at page 3.

On October 14, 2011, Watford filed a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court pursuant to the provisions of Kentucky Revised Statute[s] (KRS) 341.450(1).   She sought judicial review of the Commission's administrative decision.

In an order entered May 23, 2012, the circuit court reversed the decision of the KUIC. The court was not persuaded that the decision of the Board of Education to discharge Watford was based upon the incidents of September 7, September 9, and September 22.   Furthermore, the court concluded that the challenged conduct did not amount to insubordination.   It found that Watford had not “wantonly or willfully disregarded her employer's interest” and that her conduct had not “resulted in any undue hardship to her employer's interest.”   Opinion and Order at 3. The Board of Education filed this appeal.

Our standard of review of an administrative agency's adjudicatory decision is the same as that of the circuit court.  Burch v. Taylor Drug Store, Inc., 965 S.W2d 830 (Ky.App.1998).   That review is strictly circumscribed.   See American Beauty Homes Corp. v. Louisville & Jefferson County Planning & Zoning Comm'n, 379 S.W.2d 450 (Ky.1964).   If an administrative agency's findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence, they are absolutely binding upon the court.  Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n v. Landmark Community Newspapers of Kentucky, Inc., 91 S.W.3d 575 (Ky.2002).   Substantial evidence is defined as evidence that has sufficient probative value to induce conviction in the minds of reasonable people.  Owens–Corning Fiberglas Corp. v. Golightly, 976 S.W.2d 409 (Ky.1998).   A reviewing court may not substitute its opinion as to the credibility of the witnesses, the weight given the evidence, or the inferences to be drawn from the evidence.  Burch, supra.

We are not bound by the agency's determination on questions of law, however.   Hutchison v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 329 S.W.3d 353 (Ky.App.2010).   Instead, we review the application of the law to the facts under a de novo standard.   Furthermore, we must construe the unemployment insurance act liberally in favor of claimants.   See Department of Educ. v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 798 S.W.2d 464 (Ky.App.1990).

On appeal, the Board of Education contends that the circuit court did not review the record for substantial evidence but instead substituted its judgment for that of the KUIC. It also contends that the court erred in its application of the law to the facts as found by the KUIC. We agree with both of these contentions.

The controversy before us turns on the application of the provisions of KRS 341.370.   The statute provides, in mandatory language, that an employee shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits where “[h]e has been discharged for misconduct ․ connected with his most recent work[.]”  KRS 341.370(1)(b).  The statute expressly provides that where an employee is fired for refusing “to obey reasonable instructions,” she has been “discharged for misconduct.”  KRS 341.370(6).   Additionally, we have held that conduct demonstrating a disregard for the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee amounts to “misconduct.”  Douthitt v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n., 676 S.W.2d 472 (Ky.App.1985).   Finally, we have defined insubordination in this context as the willful disregard of an employer's instructions.  Holbrook v. Kentucky Unemployment Ins. Comm'n., 290 S.W.3d 81 (Ky.App.2009).   An employer has the burden of proving misconduct.  Shamrock Coal Co. v. Taylor, 697 S.W.2d 952 (Ky.App.1985).

The evidence before the Commission and its Referee clearly indicated that by the time the decision was made to terminate Watford, she had failed repeatedly to conform her behavior to what her employer had a right to expect;  that she had failed repeatedly to treat her employer's instructions with due regard;  and that she had refused repeatedly to obey her employer's reasonable instructions.   Consequently, the circuit court erred by concluding that the findings of the KUIC were not supported by the evidence.

The circuit court also erred by concluding that the Commission had misapplied the applicable law.   The Board of Education ably met its burden of demonstrating that Watford refused to obey her employer's reasonable instructions.   The Commission was persuaded by the Board's evidence, and it unanimously concluded that evidence of her misconduct disqualified Watford from receiving unemployment benefits.   The Commission clearly reached the correct conclusion of law based upon the facts as it found them.

The circuit court erred by reversing the decision of the Commission that Watford was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits since she was discharged for misconduct connected to her work.   Therefore, the judgment is reversed and remanded for entry of an order conforming to this opinion.

ALL CONCUR.

COMBS, JUDGE: