Supreme Court of Iowa Decision
This opinion is presented AS IS. The opinion is subject to change; there is also the possibility of introduction of error in the posting process. This database is not yet complete. Reliance on this opinion should be tempered by sound legal advice from licensed counsel.

Case Title: DALE F. REIGELSBERGER, Appellant, vs. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD, and MURPHY FARMS, INC., and MURPHY OF IOWA, INC., Appellees.
Date: 05/19/93
Bound Citation:
Summary: No. 164 / 92-890
Decision: Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Humboldt
County, Louie F. Beisser, Judge.

Appeal from district court decision affirming agency
action in claim for unemployment compensation. AFFIRMED.

Evelyn Ocheltree of Legal Services Corporation of Iowa,
Mason City, for appellant.

William C. Whitten and Joe E. Smith, Des Moines, for
appellee Employment Appeal Board.
Robert Malloy, Goldfield, for appellees Murphy Farms,
Inc. and Murphy of Iowa, Inc.

Considered by McGiverin, C.J., and Harris, Schultz,
Carter, and Lavorato, JJ.

HARRIS, J.
This appeal involves a claim for unemployment
compensation brought by a truck driver who was fired for
refusing to undergo treatment for alcoholism. The case is
somewhat unusual in two respects. The employee's drinking
problems were manifested only off duty, and do not appear
to have directly affected his on-the-job driving
performance. It is also to be noted that termination did
not result from alcoholism, only from the employee's
unyielding refusal to address it when demanded by the
employer. The agency, affirmed by the district court on
judicial review, denied benefits, finding the employee was
discharged for misconduct. We agree and affirm.
The claimant-petitioner, Dale F. Reigelsberger, was
employed as a truck driver by Murphy Farms, Inc. Prior to
being hired, Reigelsberger informed Murphy Farms he had
been convicted for operating a motor vehicle while
intoxicated seven months previously, and had undergone
alcohol abuse evaluation and treatment as a part of his
sentence. Murphy Farms was not deterred from hiring him by
this fact, requiring only that Reigelsberger had a valid
driver's license.
The first recorded alcohol-related incident following
Reigelsberger's employment was two years later, when he was
convicted for public intoxication. Murphy Farms took no
action as the result of the conviction.
Four months later Reigelsberger became intoxicated and
unruly at a social event the company sponsored after
working hours. Murphy Farms had provided a hotel room and
a free bar for the gathering. Murphy Farms promptly
suspended Reigelsberger's employment, pending further
evaluation for substance abuse. Reigelsberger was then
evaluated at a professional facility that determined he had
a drinking problem. Treatment was recommended. Murphy
Farms adopted these recommendations, treatment to be
furnished without cost to Reigelsberger, plus a demand for
random urinary analysis, as a condition for continued
employment.
Reigelsberger disagreed with the severity of the
treatment recommendations and refused to comply with them.
He had quit drinking for about a year following his prior
alcohol treatment but then began to drink again. He
prefers to try to control his drinking by himself.
Murphy Farms then terminated Reigelsberger's employment
on the basis of "lack of response and compliance [with the
treatment] recommendations . . . ." The fear is that
Reigelsberger has the potential to drive one of its
vehicles while under the influence of alcohol. Murphy
Farms thus alleges that Reigelsberger's failure to follow
the treatment recommendations jeopardized public safety and
exposed the company to liability. Under the circumstances,
Murphy Farms claims, Reigelsberger's refusal amounted to
misconduct.
There was no claim or evidence that Reigelsberger had
ever been intoxicated on the job. He had never been
informed that off-duty alcohol consumption could be a
factor of employment. Apparently, Murphy Farms had no
rules or regulations regarding alcohol consumption by
employees.
Following his termination, Reigelsberger filed for
unemployment compensation benefits. A job service
representative found no reason to disqualify him from
benefits. On Murphy Farms' appeal, an administrative law
judge reversed the job service decision, holding
Reigelsberger was discharged for misconduct in connection
with his employment by failing to begin an alcohol
treatment program. On Reigelsberger's appeal the
employment appeal board affirmed. On judicial review the
district court also affirmed the denial of benefits. The
matter is before us on Reigelsberger's appeal.
I. Appellate review of an agency's decision is
governed by Iowa Code section 17A.20 (1993). The review is
at law and not de novo. Bartelt v. Employment Appeal Bd.,
494 N.W.2d 684, 685 (Iowa 1993). We explained our
standards for review in Burns v. Board of Nursing, 495
N.W.2d 698, 699 (Iowa 1993).
II. Iowa Code section 96.5(2) provides that a claimant
is disqualified for unemployment benefits "[i]f the
division of job service finds that the individual has been
discharged for misconduct in connection with the
individual's employment." Iowa Administrative Code section
345-4.32(1)(a) defines misconduct:

Misconduct is defined as a deliberate act or
omission by a worker which constitutes a
material breach of the duties and obligations
arising out of such worker's contract of
employment. Misconduct as the term is used in
the disqualification provision as being limited
to conduct evincing such willful or wanton
disregard of an employer's interest as is found
in deliberate violation or disregard of
standards of behavior which the employer has the
right to expect of employees, or in carelessness
or negligence of such degree of recurrence as to
manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or
evil design, or to show an intentional and
substantial disregard of the employer's
interests or of the employee's duties and
obligations to the employer. On the other hand
mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct,
failure in good performance as the result of
inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or
ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or
good faith errors in judgment or discretion are
not to be deemed misconduct within the meaning
of the statute.

We have said this definition accurately reflects the intent
of the legislature. Kehde v. Iowa Dep't of Job Serv., 318
N.W.2d 202, 206 (Iowa 1982).
"Misconduct must be substantial in order to justify a
denial of unemployment benefits. Misconduct serious enough
to warrant the discharge of an employee is not necessarily
serious enough to warrant a denial of benefits."
Breithaupt v. Employment Appeal Bd., 453 N.W.2d 532, 535
(Iowa App. 1990) (citations omitted). An employer has the
burden of proving a claimant is disqualified for benefits
because of misconduct. Sallis v. Employment Appeal Bd.,
437 N.W.2d 895, 896 (Iowa 1989).
If Murphy Farms had legal authority to require
evaluation and treatment as a condition to Reigelsberger's
continued employment, Reigelsberger's refusal to
participate in treatment constitutes insubordination and a
willful disregard of his employer's interests; the refusal
would therefore constitute misconduct justifying a denial
of unemployment benefits. See Anderson v. Warren Distrib.
Co., 469 N.W.2d 687, 689 (Iowa 1991) (employee tested
positive for marijuana in drug test taken pursuant to Iowa
Code section 730.5(7)).
Murphy Farms could have obtained authority to require
evaluation and treatment under Iowa Code section 730.5
(drug testing of employees). "The legislature enacted Iowa
Code section 730.5 in response to a widespread belief that
employers have the right to expect a drug-free [and
alcohol-free] workplace and should be able to require
employees to take steps to insure it." Anderson, 469
N.W.2d at 689. Had Murphy Farms legally conducted a drug
test pursuant to Iowa Code section 730.5, and had
Reigelsberger tested positive for alcohol impairment,
Murphy Farms would have had legal authority to condition
Reigelsberger's employment on successful completion of
alcohol treatment. See Iowa Code Section 730.5(3)(f).
The question becomes, did Murphy Farms necessarily have
to conduct a drug test pursuant to section 730.5 (with
positive results) before it could condition Reigelsberger's
employment on alcohol treatment? The agency did not
mention section 730.5. The district court determined
section 730.5 is inapplicable because Murphy Farms did not
request a drug test, but rather only an evaluation and then
treatment.
Under these special circumstances we think there was
substantial compliance with section 730.5. It is true that
Reigelsberger was never subject to the blood test specified
in Iowa Code section 730.5(3). But the only purpose of the
blood test would have been to determine matters not in
dispute. There is no claim that Murphy Farms believed
Reigelsberger had been impaired on the job, one requirement
for authorizing a blood test under section 730.5(3)(a).
There is however no question that Reigelsberger had a
continuing problem with alcoholism, a fact Reigelsberger
acknowledged and of which Murphy Farms had actual
knowledge. It was also known that Reigelsberger needed
treatment for his alcoholism. These matters were of
obvious import to Murphy Farms. Murphy Farms could be
subjected to severe criticism and extensive liability for
entrusting its trucks to a driver who refused to face up to
alcoholism.
It would be poor policy to prohibit an employer from
requiring employees to face up to necessary treatment for
alcoholism. Such a prohibition would discourage the hiring
of persons with alcoholism problems. Cf. Consolidated
Freightways, Inc. v. Cedar Rapids Civil Rights Comm'n, 366
N.W.2d 522, 527 (Iowa 1985) (alcoholism can be protected
disability under municipal civil rights ordinance).
Under other circumstances it may not be reasonable to
assume that employees who become intoxicated off duty will
eventually do so at work. Without a substance abuse policy
on the part of the employer, courts appear to require some
type of on-the-job impairment or harm to the employer's
interests before an employee's refusal to participate in
treatment mandated by an employer will be held to
constitute misconduct. See 76 Am. Jur. 2d Unemployment
Compensation Sec. 97 (1992); Gavin L. Phillips, Annotation,
Employee's Use of Drugs or Narcotics, or Related Problems,
as Affecting Eligibility for Unemployment Compensation, 78
A.L.R.4th 180 (1990) (section 11); James McLoughlin,
Annotation, Conduct or Activities of Employees During Off-
Duty Hours as Misconduct Barring Unemployment Compensation
Benefits, 35 A.L.R.4th 691 (1985) (section 11). But see
Anderson, 469 N.W.2d 687.
Under the circumstances here, however, we think Murphy
Farms' demands were eminently reasonable. This employee's
history of alcoholism and professional evaluations
documented the seriousness of his problems. Alcoholism
implicates unusually high risks when driving on the
highways is involved. Reigelsberger's obdurate refusal to
face up to his problems were utterly unreasonable. He was
guilty of misconduct. Unemployment benefits were properly
rejected and the agency acted lawfully in so determining.
AFFIRMED.