Illinois Supreme Court Considers Meaning of "Misconduct" When Considering Unemployment Benefits

Petrovic v. The Department of Employment Security - Supreme Court of Illinois

Facts:  Zlata Petrovic ("Petrovic") worked for American Airlines ("American") from 1988 to 2012.  In early 2012, while working at O'Hare, Petrovic got a call from a friend at another airline.  The friend asked whether Petrovic could do something for a passenger scheduled to fly on American.  Petrovic requested a bottle of champagne be delivered to the passenger and got a flight attendant to upgrade the passenger from business class to first class.  A few weeks later, Petrovic was notified that he was terminated because she upgraded the passenger and requested the champagne without proper authorization.

Petrovic applied for unemployment benefits, but American filed a protest.  A claims adjuster denied benefits to Petrovic on the grounds that she was discharged for misconduct connected to her work.  After Petrovic appealed an in investigation was done, benefits were still denied due to alleged misconduct.  On appeal, the circuit court held that Petrovic was eligible for benefits, however.  According to the court, American had failed to provide proof that Petrovic violated an express rule or policy.  In the absence of an express rule forbidding Petrovic's actions, Petrovic could not have known her actions were forbidden.  The circuit court's ruling was appealed and the appellate court held that Petrovic's actions violated American's policy and therefore she was not entitled to benefits. 

Holding:  The Supreme Court first looked at the language of the statute as it relates to unemployment benefits.  The statute provided that an individual is ineligible for unemployment benefits if she has been discharged for "misconduct" in connection with her work.  In order for an employee's actions to constitute "misconduct", three requirements must be satisfied:  1) a deliberate and willful violation 2) of a reasonable rule or policy of the employer governing the individual's behavior in the performance of her work, that 3) either (a) harmed the employer or a fellow employee or (b) was repeated despite a warning or explicit instruction from the employer.

As to the first requirement, the Court held that it could not find evidence of a reasonable rule or policy that prohibited an American employee from requesting champagne or an upgrade for a passenger.  The Court turned to whether "there are some acts of misconduct that are so serious and so commonly accepted as wrong that employers need not have rules covering them."  While the Court recognized that the appellate court had pointed to caselaw on the issue of defining "misconduct", Petrovic's argument that a "judicially created commonsense exception" cannot be reconciled with the express language of the statute carried the day.  

In this case, nothing in the facts established that Petrovic's conduct involved any illegal or intentionally tortious conduct.  In fact, American had no policy which prohibited an employee from requesting champagne or an informal upgrade for a passenger.  As well, these types of favors had been done for passengers in the past and Petrovic had never been informed that it was not allowed. 

Judgment:  The Supreme Court of Illinois held that Petrovic was entitled to unemployment benefits on the grounds that her delivering a bottle of champagne to a passenger and getting them an upgrade in seats did not amount to "misconduct" as American Airlines did not have a policy that prohibited these actions nor make Petrovic aware that this conduct was prohibited.

The Takeaway:  This was a very interesting read from the Supreme Court, if for no other reason than to point out that many courts simply will not read language into a statute that is not ambiguous on its face.  In this case, although a "commonsense exception" was advocated by American, the evidence simply failed to establish that anything Petrovic did conflicted with American policy.  On top of that, Petrovic's actions were not illegal nor did they constitute intentionally tortious conduct.  Given that the language of the statute was clear on its face, I think the Court properly applied the plain language of the statute to the facts of the case.  In doing so, I think the Court was correct in holding that Petrovic had not been terminated for "misconduct" and therefore was entitled to unemployment benefits.

Majority Opinion Judge:  Judge Burke

Date:  February 4, 2016

Opinion:  hr.cch.com/ELD/PetrovicIDES020416.pdf