Michael J. Beagan
v.
Rhode Island Department of Labor and Training, Board of Review et al.
Sixth
Division District Court A.A. 13-33 Jeanne E. LaFazia
Magistrate Joseph P. Ippolito, Jr. Chief Judge
For
Claimant: Richard A. Sinapi, Esq.
For
Defendant: Valentino D. Lombardi, Esq. Donald G. Elbert, Jr.
Present: Suttell, C.J., Goldberg, Flaherty, Robinson, and
Indeglia, JJ.
OPINION
Paul
A. Suttell Chief Justice.
The
claimant, Michael J. Beagan, filed a petition for writ of
certiorari to this Court pursuant to the Administrative
Procedures Act, G.L. 1956 § 42-35-16, seeking review of
a decision of the District Court affirming the denial of
unemployment benefits to him. Following his termination from
employment with the defendant, Albert Kemperle,
Inc.[1]
(Kemperle, Inc. or employer), the Rhode Island Department of
Labor and Training (DLT) denied Beagan's application for
unemployment benefits on the basis that he had been
discharged for "disqualifying reasons" pursuant to
G.L. 1956 § 28-44-18 of the Rhode Island Employment
Security Act[2] and was therefore not entitled to such
benefits. After exhausting his administrative remedies,
Beagan sought review in District Court, where DLT's
decision was affirmed. We issued a writ of certiorari; and,
for the reasons stated herein, we quash the judgment of the
District Court.
I
Facts
and Procedural History[3]
Beagan
was employed by Kemperle, Inc. as a full-time delivery driver
for approximately four years before he was discharged on
March 7, 2013. Shortly before his termination, Kemperle, Inc.
had issued a new "accident policy" that Beagan had
initially refused to sign. According to Beagan's manager,
Henry Morancey, Beagan raised concerns over this new policy
with other employees and began to cause a "ruckus."
On March 6, 2013, Morancey clarified this new policy to
Beagan in a conversation, after which Beagan agreed to sign
the policy. During that conversation, Beagan also voiced
concerns that he was not being paid 2.5 hours for overtime
work each week.[4] Following their exchange, Morancey wrote
an email to the owner of Kemperle, Inc., Ronald Kemper,
stating:
"I just wanted to keep you informed of a situation here
in the Rhode Island location. When the new 'Standard
Operations & Procedures' came out, I printed copies
for each of my employees and asked them to read them over,
sign and return to me. Over the next week or so, * * *
Beagan, one of my drivers, began to complain about the
policies and how unfair he thought they were, how his wife
works for a Workers' Compensation attorney and she thinks
[Beagan] should be compensated for at least 2-1/2 hours of
overtime every week and he shouldn't have to comply with
the standard operation procedures, etc. He has been voicing
his opinions to not only the drivers here in Rhode Island,
but also the drivers in the Hartford location creating a lot
of ill-will.
"Yesterday I told everyone that the signed copies were
due and needed to be returned to me as I had to return them
to Corporate. [Beagan] initially refused to sign the
document. He reiterated his feelings that the terms were
unfair and he did not want to sign it. I told him it was his
choice to sign or not, however, there would most likely be
consequences if he did not comply. I went on to tell him that
everyone in the company was required to sign the document,
myself included. He began ranting about how his wife works
for a Workers' Compensation attorney and he didn't
have to sign."
The
following day, Morancey called Beagan into his office,
intending to terminate his employment because, according to
Morancey, the previous day the two "had some * * * words
and [Beagan] [had taken] a couple of personal shots at
[him]." He indicated that, although "normally"
an employee was given three written warnings before being
terminated, because "things were getting * * * pretty
bad between" the two, "[he] felt it was in
everyone's best interest to let [Beagan] go."
Morancey testified that, while he was speaking to Beagan,
Beagan "got teary-eyed and stuff" and that Morancey
"kind of took a little bit of pity on him" and
decided to give him another chance. Instead of terminating
Beagan's employment, Morancey gave him a written
notice;[5] Beagan apologized, signed a copy of the
email Morancey had sent to Kemper as well as the written
notice, and acknowledged that he had exhibited insubordinate
behavior. Beagan was informed that the next violation would
result in termination. Morancey then explained what occurred
next:
"I then proceeded to send [Beagan] on his daily routine
to * * * make deliveries to customers. * * * [I]n * * * the
office he made a comment about how * * * he can write
whatever he wants on Facebook, which, I guess, is * * * his
right under the Constitution of free speech. * * * I guess,
he said a lot of stuff about me personally, on his Facebook
account, none of which I ever followed. I do not use
Facebook. * * * [H]e basically told me in the office, before
we adjourned the meeting, that * * * I couldn't see what
he writes on his Facebook because he has me blocked. So, that
being said, * * * it had piqued my curiosity to see exactly
what [he] was saying about me. So I had a third party, who
I'd like to remain anonymous, log on to Facebook and
bring up [Beagan's] page, at which point I * * * saw
quite a few things that he had to say about me and about our
meeting in the office that * * * morning of [March 7]."
He
later described that Beagan had spoken in a "smug
manner" when he indicated that Morancey would not be
able to find out what he says on Facebook. A post made on
Beagan's Facebook page that day read: "It's a
good thing my boss doesn't take things personal and wanna
[sic], like, know if I wrote shit about him. I
sometimes forget that despite that [sic] fact he
walks and talk [sic] like a real person, he
isn't a real boy, Geppeto
[sic]."[6] This post appears to have been made three
hours prior to Morancey accessing Facebook.[7] When Beagan
returned from his morning deliveries, Morancey informed him
that his employment was being terminated. Beagan recalled
Morancey mentioning Facebook at that time, but he left the
premises without any further discussion.[8]
A
Administrative
Procedures
On
March 18, 2013, Beagan filed a claim for unemployment
benefits with DLT. The DLT form completed by Kemperle, Inc.
noted the reason for Beagan's discharge as:
"misconduct * * * [Beagan] was written up then left the
office exhibiting insubordination in front of other employee
[sic] right after signing a written notice. He was
then terminated[.] Prior to be [sic] written up he
was voicing his negative attatude [sic] in other
business loccotons [sic]." Additionally,
Kemperle, Inc.'s "employer statement, " again
describing the cause of Beagan's termination, quoted the
language of the written warning, described that Beagan was
angry about the new policy and that, after signing the
written policy, "[Beagan] went out of the office ranting
and raging to other employees about management and the new
policy. He wanted overtime. He was given [two] 15 minute
breaks and ½ hour lunch[es]. [H]e was saying he wanted
overtime and causing a commotion with other employees."
Neither of these forms referenced any Facebook post as the
cause of discharge.
On
April 22, 2013, the director of DLT denied Beagan's
application because it found that Beagan had been discharged
due to "unprofessional behavior in the workplace"
and was disqualified from receiving benefits because his
"actions were not in [the] employer's best
interest[]" pursuant to § 28-44-18.
Beagan
timely appealed this determination to the appeal tribunal
(referee) pursuant to § 28-44-43.[9] On May 29, 2013,
a hearing was held before the referee. At the hearing, both
Beagan and Morancey testified. In addition to recounting the
incidents of March 6 and 7 (as summarized herein), Morancey
testified that "the Facebook posting was the reason
[Beagan] was let go, ultimately." He also noted that the
reason he terminated Beagan's employment, "aside
from the fact that [Beagan] wrote what he did on Facebook,
[was] that [there was] also a policy that [Beagan] [was] not
supposed to use his cell phone for texting or Internet use
while he[] [was] driving a company vehicle. And given the
timeframe that he posted that threat, it[] [was] obvious that
he was on the road."
At the
close of the hearing, the referee issued a written decision
affirming the director's denial of benefits. In his
decision, the referee made the following findings of fact:
"[Beagan] worked as a driver for Albert Kemperie
[sic], Inc. for 4 years and 3 months, last on March
7, 2013. The employer terminated [Beagan] for violating the
company policy concerning insubordination. [Beagan] was upset
about new company policy changes concerning abuse of time off
and driving accidents in company vehicles. [Beagan] was
inciting coworkers in his office and also in the Connecticut
office against the policy changes creating a lot of ill-will.
The employer introduced evidence that showed that the
claimant was posting derogatory comments about his supervisor
on Facebook that named his supervisor. [Beagan] stated that
he was terminated because he complained about not being paid
2.5 hours of overtime per week."
The
referee concluded that:
"[Beagan] was terminated for violating the company
policy concerning insubordination, therefore, I find that
sufficient credible testimony has been provided by the
employer to support that the claimant's actions were not
in the employer's best interest. Therefore, I find that
[Beagan] was discharged for disqualifying reasons under
Section 28-44-18 * * *."
Beagan
appealed the referee's decision to the full board of
review (the board) pursuant to § 28-44-47. On August 2,
2013, the board affirmed the referee's decision, finding
that there was a proper adjudication of the facts and a
proper application of the law. The board declared the
decision of the referee "to be ...