The MPT Task: Statutory Interpretation in a Benefits Appeal

Argument:

I. The hearing officer applied the wrong legal standard. The statute disqualifies only for willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interests and expressly excludes good-faith errors in judgment and inability to perform due to circumstances beyond the employee's control. The hearing officer found only "insubordination" without analyzing willfulness or wantonness - that is legal error requiring remand.

II. Client's conduct was not willful or wanton. The employer's letter alleges "repeated failure to follow the supervisor's instructions regarding break scheduling." But Client's affidavit establishes that the supervisor changed the schedule daily without notice and that Client followed the posted schedule, which conflicted with the supervisor's oral instructions. Following a written, posted policy over an oral instruction is not willful disregard - it is at most a good-faith error in judgment, which the statute expressly excludes from misconduct. The circumstances (daily changes, conflicting instructions) were beyond Client's control, also excluded.

III. The prior decisions support Client. The decision holding that "an employee who follows a written policy over an oral instruction has not committed misconduct" is directly on point and controls. The employer may cite the decision that "a single incident of insubordination" can be misconduct, but that case is distinguishable: it involved a clear, unambiguous instruction that the employee knowingly defied. Here, the instructions were conflicting and changing, so there was no clear directive to defy. Moreover, the "single incident" case does not address the statutory good-faith exclusion.

IV. Remand is required. Because the hearing officer made no finding on willfulness or the good-faith exclusion, the proper remedy is remand for findings under the correct standard, not affirmance.

Conclusion: Reverse and remand for a determination that Client's conduct was not willful or wanton disregard and falls within the statutory exclusions.

Strongest counterargument: The employer will argue that repeated failures to follow a supervisor's direct oral instruction constitute willful insubordination - the employee was told what to do and chose not to do it. The employer will cite the appellate decision holding that a single incident of insubordination can be misconduct and argue that repeated incidents are a fortiori misconduct. The employer may also argue that following the posted schedule was not a good-faith error because Client knew the supervisor's oral instruction conflicted with the posting and should have asked for clarification.

Rebuttal:

1. The "single incident" case is distinguishable. It involved a clear, unambiguous instruction that the employee knowingly defied. Here, the supervisor changed the schedule daily without notice, creating conflicting directives. An employee cannot willfully defy an instruction she cannot reliably identify. The posted schedule was the employer's own written policy - following it is not defiance.
2. The statute's text controls. Even if the conduct were "insubordination" in lay terms, the statute expressly excludes good-faith errors in judgment and circumstances beyond the employee's control. The daily, unannounced changes are circumstances beyond Client's control. The hearing officer's failure to analyze these exclusions is legal error.
3. The other appellate decision is directly on point. Following a written policy over an oral instruction is not misconduct - that holding squarely covers these facts and should control over the distinguishable "single incident" case.
4. Burden: The employer bears the burden of proving willful or wanton disregard. Ambiguity in the instructions defeats that burden.

Practical note: Emphasize the written policy and the daily changes in the record; request remand so the agency makes the required findings.