Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Dubuque County, Thomas A. Bitter, Judge.
An employee appeals the district court's decision affirming the Employment Appeal Board's denial of unemployment benefits.
Bradley T. Boffeli of Kurt Law Office, P.C., Dubuque, for appellant.
Rick Autry, Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appellee.
Considered by Doyle, P.J., and Danilson and Mullins, JJ.
Earl Hiland appeals the district court's ruling on judicial review, which affirmed the Employment Appeal Board's (EAB) decision to deny his unemployment benefits. He contends his absences were not sufficient to constitute statutory misconduct and thus, he is not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. We affirm the denial of unemployment benefits because we determine the EAB's decision was not unreasonable and find there is substantial evidence in the record to support the decision. We agree with Hiland that the district court should not have assessed court costs against him, and vacate that portion of the district court judgment.
I. Background and Proceedings.
Hiland started his employment as a full-time sales associate with Turpin Dodge on May 19, 2006, and continued his employment until he was terminated on January 2, 2012. His scheduled hours were from 8:30 a.m. to 5:30 p.m.
On May 28, 2011, Hiland missed work because he had been arrested. He received a warning for the absence on June 1, 2011. Again on December 28, 2011, Hiland was absent from work after being arrested. He first notified his manager, Patrick Turpin, about his absence at 3 p.m. when he called and requested bail money. Turpin refused to provide him with bail money. Hiland was then absent again on December 29, 2011; he did not call or provide any notification. On January 2, 2012, Hiland contacted his employer and was terminated.
Hiland filed a claim for unemployment benefits. On February 3, 2012, Iowa Workforce Development Center issued a decision that Hiland was ineligible for benefits because he voluntarily quit his employment without good cause attributable to the employer. Hiland filed an appeal on February 7, 2012. A telephone hearing was held by an administrative law judge (ALJ) on February 28, 2012, in which the parties stipulated that Hiland did not voluntarily quit. However the ALJ determined that Hiland was discharged for disqualifying misconduct. Benefits were again denied.
Hiland appealed the decision to the EAB on March 9, 2012. The EAB issued a unanimous decision affirming the ALJ's decision.
Hiland then filed a petition for judicial review. On November 27, 2012, the district court entered an order affirming the EAB and denying ...