{
  "id": 11890077,
  "name": "BAGWELL & BAGWELL, INCORPORATED, Petitioner-Appellant v. PATRICIA C. BLANTON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellees",
  "name_abbreviation": "Bagwell & Bagwell, Inc. v. Blanton",
  "decision_date": "1996-11-19",
  "docket_number": "No. COA95-1393",
  "first_page": "538",
  "last_page": "541",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "124 N.C. App. 538"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "N.C. Ct. App.",
    "id": 14983,
    "name": "North Carolina Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 5,
    "name_long": "North Carolina",
    "name": "N.C."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "461 S.E.2d 25",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "28"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "120 N.C. App. 160",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11914441
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "164"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/120/0160-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "307 S.E.2d 165",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 N.C. 321",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        4762957,
        4765550,
        4763995,
        4764923,
        4761023
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/309/0321-05",
        "/nc/309/0321-01",
        "/nc/309/0321-02",
        "/nc/309/0321-04",
        "/nc/309/0321-03"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "303 S.E.2d 411",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "412"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "62 N.C. App. 729",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524890
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "731"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/62/0729-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "454 S.E.2d 836",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "838"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "118 N.C. App. 275",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        11917659
      ],
      "year": 1995,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "278"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/118/0275-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 380,
    "char_count": 7640,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.741,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.24392580416850557
    },
    "sha256": "3c6b3f67900dfed51de17aa0f6d01d0ff37a80609db592dad27842cd908148a2",
    "simhash": "1:27a52eaa7c08306f",
    "word_count": 1238
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:03:33.335576+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Chief Judge ARNOLD and Judge JOHNSON concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "BAGWELL & BAGWELL, INCORPORATED, Petitioner-Appellant v. PATRICIA C. BLANTON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellees"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Greene, Judge.\nBagwell and Bagwell Inc. (employer) appeals from a judgment of the superior court affirming a decision of the Employment Security Commission of North Carolina (the Commission) which determined that Patricia C. Blanton (employee) was \u201cnot disqualified for unemployment benefits.\u201d\nThe appeal from the superior court to this Court requires that we review the order of the Commission \u201cin the same manner as the superior court must review that order.\u201d Housecalls Nursing Servs. v. Lynch, 118 N.C. App. 275, 278, 454 S.E.2d 836, 838 (1995). Thus, we accept as conclusive the findings of fact made by the Commission \u201cif there is any competent evidence to support them.\u201d Id.\nThe Commission made the following pertinent findings of fact:\n3. The [employee] was discharged from this job for insubordination.\n4. The [employee] was hired on September 20, 1993. The [employee] was given a starting salary of $20,000.00. She was promised a review and possible raise in six and twelve months.\n5. The [employee] gave the secretary/treasurer a letter on May 17, 1994 that requested a $5,000.00 a year raise. She presented the employer with the letter because she had been working for eight months and had not received an evaluation. The employer did not understand the content of the letter and asked if it was a letter of resignation, if the raise request was not granted. The [employee] said that it was not a resignation letter. The employer informed her that she was not going to receive a raise and considered it a resignation letter. The employer then informed her that she was terminated. The [employee] asked the employer to reconsider, became excited and began crying. The employer asked her to leave the premises or he would call the police and have her removed from the premises.\n6. The [employee] left the office and slammed the door on her way out. The [employee] then began cleaning out her desk. The employer watched as she was cleaning out the desk. . . . The [employee] left the premises. The employer asked for her office key as she was leaving, but she did not have it with her.\n7. The [employee\u2019s] husband met her in the parking lot. The husband talked to the employer about the circumstances surrounding his wife\u2019s discharge. The employer said she had not been discharged but had been sent home with pay for the day. The parties then left. The [employee] informed the employer that she was planning to sue him as a result of the discharge.\n8. On May 18, 1994, the employer\u2019s attorney informed the [employee], once again, that she had been discharged. The [employee] had not been insubordinate to the employer prior to the discharge.\n(Emphases added.)\nThe Commission then concluded that the employee was not \u201cdischarged from the job for substantial fault or misconduct connected with the work.\u201d\nThe evidence before the Commission is conflicting as to when the employee was actually discharged. There is no dispute that she was officially notified by the employer\u2019s attorney on 18 May 1994 that she \u201chad been discharged.\u201d The employer\u2019s evidence could support a finding that the employee was discharged for insubordinate behavior occurring on 17 May 1994. The employee\u2019s evidence could support a finding that the employee was discharged because she asked for a raise and that any insubordination occurred only after she was notified that she had been \u201cterminated.\u201d The evidence is not in conflict that on 17 May 1994 after being told by the employer that she \u201cwas not going to receive a raise,\u201d that she \u201cbecame excited and began crying.\u201d She \u201cleft the office [of the employer] and slammed the door on her way out.\u201d As the employer watched her clean out her desk \u201cshe told him to leave her damn office or she would throw something at him.\u201d\nThe issue is whether the Commission resolved the conflict in the evidence with regard to the time of the employee\u2019s discharge.\nThere is a presumption that an employee is entitled to benefits under the Unemployment Compensation Act. In re Miller v. Guilford County Schools, 62 N.C. App. 729, 731, 303 S.E.2d 411, 412, disc. rev. denied, 309 N.C. 321, 307 S.E.2d 165 (1983). \u201cThe employer bears the burden of rebutting this presumption by showing circumstances which disqualify the [employee].\u201d Williams v. Davie County, 120 N.C. App. 160, 164, 461 S.E.2d 25, 28 (1995). Section 96-14 enumerates a number of instances when an employee will be disqualified. One such disqualifying circumstance is \u201cbecause [the employee] was discharged for misconduct connected with his work.\u201d Section 96-14(2) defines \u201cmisconduct\u201d as:\nconduct evincing such wilful or wanton disregard of an employer\u2019s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee ... or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer\u2019s interests or of the employee\u2019s duties and obligations to his employer.\nN.C.G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2) (1995).\nIn this case the parties dispute whether the employee\u2019s conduct constitutes misconduct, and if so, whether the misconduct was the cause of the discharge. It was the responsibility of the Commission to resolve these disputes and our review of the record indicates that it failed in its duty.\nThe Commission appears to assume that the employee\u2019s conduct constitutes misconduct and then determines that because this conduct occurred after she was discharged, it did not disqualify her from benefits. The problem with this approach, however, is that the findings of the Commission are in conflict as to when the discharge actually occurred and thus cannot support its conclusion. In finding of fact number 3, the Commission finds that the employee \u201cwas discharged from [her] job for insubordination.\u201d Finding of fact number 8, on the other hand, states that she \u201chad not been insubordinate . . . prior to the discharge.\u201d Finding of fact number 5 states that on 17 May 1994 she was told that \u201cshe was terminated.\u201d On the other hand, finding of fact number 7 states that \u201cshe had not been discharged but had been sent home with pay.\u201d\nBecause the Commission has failed in its duty to resolve the conflict in the evidence, we are required to remand this matter to the Commission. On remand, if the Commission resolves the conflict and determines that conduct (alleged to constitute misconduct) occurred after the discharge, the employee will not be disqualified from benefits. If, however, the Commission determines that the conduct occurred prior to the discharge, the Commission must then determine whether the conduct constitutes misconduct within the meaning of section 96-14(2) and further whether the discharge was caused by that misconduct.\nRemanded.\nChief Judge ARNOLD and Judge JOHNSON concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Greene, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Randolph L. Worth for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Chief Counsel Thomas S. Whitaker, by Thelma M. Hill, for respondent-appellees."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "BAGWELL & BAGWELL, INCORPORATED, Petitioner-Appellant v. PATRICIA C. BLANTON and EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION OF NORTH CAROLINA, Respondent-Appellees\nNo. COA95-1393\n(Filed 19 November 1996)\nLabor and Employment \u00a7 173 (NCI4tli)\u2014 unemployment benefits \u2014 findings of Employment Security Commission\u2014 conflicting\nAn appeal to the Court of Appeals of a Superior Court judgment affirming a decision by the Employment Security Commission was remanded to the Commission where the findings of the Commission were in conflict and thus could not support its conclusion.\nAm Jur 2d, Unemployment Compensation \u00a7\u00a7 43, 215.\nAppeal by petitioner from judgment filed 22 March 1995 in Wake County Superior Court by Judge Wiley F. Bowen. Heard in the Court of Appeals 18 September 1996.\nRandolph L. Worth for petitioner-appellant.\nChief Counsel Thomas S. Whitaker, by Thelma M. Hill, for respondent-appellees."
  },
  "file_name": "0538-01",
  "first_page_order": 576,
  "last_page_order": 579
}
