| |
Court of Appeals Division III
State of Washington
Opinion Information Sheet
Docket Number: 22458-9-III
Title of Case: Donald W. Bauer v. State of Washington, Employment
Security Dept.
File Date: 03/17/2005
SOURCE OF APPEAL
----------------
Appeal from Superior Court of Spokane County
Docket No: 03-2-03620-4
Judgment or order under review
Date filed: 10/03/2003
Judge signing: Hon. Salvatore F Cozza
JUDGES
------
Authored by John A. Schultheis
Concurring: Frank L. Kurtz
Dissenting: Stephen M Brown
COUNSEL OF RECORD
-----------------
Counsel for Appellant(s)
Stanley Allan Jr Kempner
Attorney at Law
901 E Nora Ave
Spokane, WA 99207-2459
Counsel for Respondent(s)
Jacqueline Bolden
Office of Attorney
900 4th Ave Ste 2000
Seattle, WA 98164
No. 22458-9-III
Brown, J. (dissenting) The Department of Employment Security has
longstanding, established precedent in the form of Commissioner's Decisions
interpreting RCW 50.20.050 to encompass constructive quit principles.1 We
must accord substantial weight to the Department's interpretation of RCW
50.20.050 because it is within the agency's area of expertise.2 RCW
50.20.050 disqualifies employees from receiving unemployment benefits when
voluntarily leaving work without good cause. Here, the uncontested facts
are verities.3
In my view, the Department did not err in applying existing constructive
quit principles to new facts when concluding Donald Bauer acted in a way to
make him ineligible for unemployment benefits. This case is not about an
extension of law but the application of existing law. I would hold that
when an employee understands an employment prerequisite (here, a commercial
driver's license) is an imperative for continued employment, and then acts
volitionally and inconsistently with maintaining that prerequisite, the
employee fits within the constructive quit doctrine.
Because I disagree with the majority that, under RCW 50.20.050(1), an
employee must in every case specifically intend to quit work for the
statute to apply, I respectfully dissent. I would not implicitly
disapprove the Department's precedents. After all, even in a criminal
case, 'an actor intends the natural and foreseeable consequences of his
conduct.'4
Accordingly, I would affirm.
Brown, J.
1 In re Harden, Empl. Sec. Comm'r Dec.2d 843 (1994); In re Ponti, Empl.
Sec. Comm'r Dec. 270 (1977); In re Morris, Empl. Sec. Comm'r Dec. 801
(1969).
2 Haley v. Med. Disciplinary Bd., 117 Wn.2d 720, 728, 818 P.2d 1062 (1991).
3 Lawter v. Employment Sec. Dep't, 73 Wn. App. 327, 869 P.2d 102 (1994).
4 State v. Perez-Cervantes, 141 Wn.2d 468, 481, 6 P.3d 1160 (2000)
(emphasis added).
|
|