Preview:

. .. ,

.
. .

-.

~

STATE OF MAINE CLTMBERLAND, ss.
- , ,

-, >
...
:

. .,-

~. .

.

:. ..

,..

.- . . .
4

...

.

-

,.,+

;

.,"" , ,'?

- .-.:
> .'
I

,? I :< ; ;
--,
, -

<?: !!?'q
! -

SUPERIOR COURT CIVIL ACTION

--

'Lib,?,

*

.

* ,-j,,..D [..

*

h,a +, ': ;
,

,,-*,, , .

MAREK A. KWASNIK, Petitioner v. UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMMISSION, Respondent

*

,..-y.~~+ gi;;.":* , , . '';' '$y

pai?

*

* *
*

ORDER

* * *

..
*

-=&-

T h s case comes before the Court on Marek Kwasnik's Motion to Strike the Unemployment Insurance Commission's Brief and Rule 80C appeal from the Commission's determination that Petitioner was discharged by Barber Foods for misconduct. FACTUAL BACKGROUND Marek Kwasnik (Petitioner)was employed at Barber Foods, Inc. as a senior techcian, from September 4,2002, until November 1,2002. He was discharged following numerous complaints about his abrasive and confrontational behavior towards other employees. In 2003, following subsequent employment in Massachusetts, Petitioner began receiving unemployment benefits. Shortly thereafter, Barber Foods' experience rating record was charged according to the interstate claims process. Barber Foods appealed t h s determination to the Division of Administrative Hearings (DHA). On January 14,2004, a DHA hearing officer addressed the narrow issue of whether Barber Foods should be charged for Petitioner's benefits. He ultimately

determined that Barber Foods should not be charged because Petitioner had been discharged for misconduct. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1043(23). Petitioner appealed this decision. On April 9,2004, the Unemployment Insurance Commission (the Commission) affirmed and adopted the DHA decision. On May 10,2004, Petitioner filed an appeal pursuant to Maine Civil Rule 80C. DISCUSSION Preliminarily, pursuant to M.R. Civ. P. 80C(g),in an appeal of final agency action, the respondent has 30 days after the service of the petitioner's brief to file a brief. Thus, Petitioner's Motion to Strike the Commissionfsbrief is denied. In reviewing a decision of the Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, the Court must determine whether the record contains competent evidence to support the findings of the Commission. Spear v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Corn., 505 A.2d 82,84 (Me. 1986). The Court will affirm the Commission's decision if it is supported by substantial evidence on the whole (1979). record. Id.; 5 M.R.S.A. 9 11007(4)(C)(5) The first issue in h s case is whether Petitioner was discharged from Barber Foods for engaging in misconduct. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1043(23)(Supp. 2004). Misconduct is defined, in relevant part, as "a culpable breach of the employee's duties or obligations to the employer or a pattern of irresponsible behavior, which in either case manifests a disregard for a material interest of the employer.
Id. The statute further provides that "an unreasonable violation of rules that are

reasonably imposed and communicated and equitably enforced manifests a disregard for a material interest of the employer. ld. at 5 1043(A)(2). Here, the records shows that Petitioner's supervisor received eight

complaints about Petitioner's abrasive and confrontational demeanor during his short employment with Barber Foods. (Record 59,61-62). On numerous occasions, the supervisor discussed Petitioner's abrasive demeanor and provided h m with several t e c h q u e s to assist in modifying lus method of communication. Even after a final warning was issued, Petitioner still &d not modify his behavior. There is substantial evidence on the record as a whole to support the Commission's finding that Petitioner engaged in a pattern of irresponsible behavior e h b i t e d by the numerous complaints of lus abrasive and confrontational demeanor. The second issue in tlus case is whether h s case is moot. Petitioner's collection of unemployment benefits was unaffected by the misconduct determination.' His only argument is that a finding of misconduct taints h s reputation and thus amounts to defamation. However, the Employment Security Law provides that, inter alia, a finding of misconduct is confidential and has no consequence beyond the unemployment context. 26 M.R.S.A. 5 1194(12). Therefore, because Petitioner's collection of benefits was unaffected by the determination, and a findmg of misconduct does not taint his reputation, there is no real controversy for tlus Court to deade. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance C

DATE:

@~%-%?,wQ~

Petitioner conceded at oral argument that he has collected the entire amount of unemployment benefits awarded to h m .

Date Filed Action

05 - LO -2004

Cumberland County

80C Appeal STATE OF MAINE UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE COMISSION; DIVISION OF ADMINSTRATIVE HEARINGS OF MAINE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR; B & ~ - ~ O O ~ s , - & ~ ~ - ; ~ i s r n i s s e d STEYEN-BBBBEB;-GBEGOBX-BUBG~S~-~~~-FQQB~-~PTC~D~S. MAINTENANCE SUPERVISOR 2nd SHIFT
VS.

MAREK A. KWASNIK

Plaintiff's Attorney PRO SE Marek A. Kwasnik 99 Swett Road Windham, ME 04062

Defendant's Attorne Elizabeth J. ?$man, AAG Office of the Attorney General 6 State House Station Augusta, ME 04333-0006 207-626-8800

Date of Entry

t



Download CUMap-04-20.pdf

Maine Law