{
  "id": 8520471,
  "name": "IN THE MATTER OF: DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner v. WALTER J. FEATHERSTON, SR., and NORTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Respondents",
  "name_abbreviation": "Department of Crime Control & Public Safety v. Featherston",
  "decision_date": "1989-10-17",
  "docket_number": "No. 8910SC93",
  "first_page": "102",
  "last_page": "105",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 N.C. App. 102"
    }
  ],
  "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": "376 S.E.2d 756",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 N.C. 213",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        2486371
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/324/0213-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "weight": 4,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Emphasis added."
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "Emphasis added."
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 S.E.2d 308",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "57 N.C. App. 363",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        8524502
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc-app/57/0363-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "N.C. Gen. Stat.",
      "year": 1988,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(i)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "289 S.E.2d 357",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.E.2d",
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "305 N.C. 373",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "N.C.",
      "case_ids": [
        8569932
      ],
      "year": 1982,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/nc/305/0373-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 404,
    "char_count": 6909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.744,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.1459480448075268e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5802139429750538
    },
    "sha256": "4d4c9a9b783537d3c76fac59ffdbaeb30f81b6b05d9a65a79671b92ae76732f7",
    "simhash": "1:f0655dff4c6f5f50",
    "word_count": 1044
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:35.242103+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Judges Phillips and Parker concur."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "IN THE MATTER OF: DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner v. WALTER J. FEATHERSTON, SR., and NORTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Respondents"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "WELLS, Judge.\nAn appeal from a decision of the Employment Security Commission raises but two questions for review: (1) whether the evidence before the Commission supports its findings of fact and (2) whether the facts found sustain the Commission\u2019s conclusions of law. Intercraft Industries v. Morrison, 305 N.C. 373, 289 S.E.2d 357 (1982). Employer lodged no exception to the Commission\u2019s findings of fact, therefore, those findings are presumed supported and are binding on appeal. N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-15(i) (1988); Hagen v. Peden Steel and Employment Sec. Comm., 57 N.C. App. 363, 291 S.E.2d 308 (1982). Consequently, the only issue before us is whether the Commission\u2019s findings of fact support its conclusion of law that claimant was not discharged for misconduct or substantial fault connected with his employment.\nA claimant will be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he is discharged from employment \u201cfor misconduct connected with his work.\u201d N.C. Gen. Stat. \u00a7 96-14(2). Misconduct under this standard is defined as\nconduct evincing such willful 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 in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer\u2019s interests or of the employee\u2019s duties and obligations to his employer.\nId. (Emphasis added.) A claimant may also be disqualified from receiving benefits if discharged from employment \u201cfor substantial fault on his part connected with his work not rising to the level of misconduct.\u201d Id. \u00a7 96-14(2A). Under this lower standard, substantial fault includes\nthose acts or omissions of employees over which they exercised reasonable control and which violate reasonable requirements of the job but shall not include (1) minor infractions of rules unless such infractions are repeated after a warning was received by the employee[.]\nId. (Emphasis added.) These statutes are to be strictly construed in favor of the claimant, and the employer has the burden of proving that the claimant is disqualified. Barnes v. The Singer Co., 324 N.C. 213, 376 S.E.2d 756 (1989).\nMeasuring the Commission\u2019s findings against these standards, we conclude that the superior court properly upheld the Commission\u2019s ruling that claimant was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Although claimant\u2019s associations arguably placed him in violation of the departmental rule prohibiting dealings with criminals, such conduct would not rise to the level of substantial fault under G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2A) absent claimant\u2019s repetition of the violation after a warning. No such repetition occurred here. Upon being counseled regarding the departmental rule, claimant ceased all of his objectionable associations. Because we determine that claimant\u2019s conduct is not within the more liberal standard of a substantial fault analysis under G.S. \u00a7 96-14\u00cd2A), we need not reach the question of whether his conduct falls within the stricter standard of misconduct under G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2).\nAffirmed.\nJudges Phillips and Parker concur.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "WELLS, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Attorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Linda Anne Morris, for petitioner-appellant.",
      "Hensley, Huggard, Seigle, Obiol, and Bousman, by John A. Obiol, for respondent-appellee Featherston.",
      "C. Coleman Billingsley, Jr. for respondent-appellee Employment Security Commission."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "IN THE MATTER OF: DEPARTMENT OF CRIME CONTROL AND PUBLIC SAFETY, Petitioner v. WALTER J. FEATHERSTON, SR., and NORTH CAROLINA EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION, Respondents\nNo. 8910SC93\n(Filed 17 October 1989)\nMaster and Servant \u00a7 108.1 (NCI3d)\u2014 state trooper\u2019s association with felons \u2014 no substantial misconduct \u2014 right to unemployment compensation\nThe trial court properly upheld the Employment Security Commission\u2019s ruling that claimant, a former state trooper, was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits where claimant negotiated the sale of an automobile and car rack to a person whom he knew to be a convicted drug dealer; claimant was counseled regarding this transaction and his associations with other known felons and he thereafter ceased all associations which may have been questioned under the departmental rule; claimant was subsequently discharged; and claimant\u2019s conduct did not rise to the level of substantial fault under N.C.G.S. \u00a7 96-14(2A) absent his repetition of the violation after a warning.\nAm Jur 2d, Unemployment Compensation \u00a7 38.\nAPPEAL by petitioner from Allen, J. B., Jr., Judge. Judgment entered 24 October 1988 in WAKE County Superior Court. Heard in the Court of Appeals 12 September 1989.\nWalter J. Featherston, Sr., claimant, who was discharged from his employment as a state trooper, filed for unemployment benefits beginning on 13 December 1987. The claims adjuster ruled that claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with his employment and disqualified him from receiving benefits. Claimant appealed to the referee who determined that claimant was not discharged for work-related misconduct and therefore was qualified for unemployment benefits. The Department of Crime Control and Public Safety (Employer) appealed to the Employment Security Commission which affirmed the decision of the referee. Employer then appealed to the Wake County Superior Court.\nIn the proceeding held during its 24 October 1988 civil session, the court adopted the findings of the Commission. These findings were that employer had a departmental rule, in force at the time of claimant\u2019s; employment, which stated:\nMembers [of the Highway Patrol] shall avoid regular or continuous associations or dealings with persons who [sic] they know, or should know, are racketeers, sexual offenders, gamblers, suspected felons, persons under criminal investigation or indictment, or who have a reputation in the community for present involvement in felonious or criminal behavior, except as necessary to the performance of official duties.\nIn October 1986, claimant negotiated the sale of an automobile and car rack to a person whom he knew to be a convicted drug dealer. Claimant was counseled in November 1986 regarding this transaction and his associations with other known felons, and he thereafter ceased all associations which may have been questioned under the departmental rule. On 26 February 1987, claimant was questioned by his superiors regarding his former associations. No further action was taken by employer until claimant\u2019s discharge on 23 September 1987.\nAfter examining the record and reviewing the evidence therein, the court found the facts to be supported by competent evidence and concluded that the law had been correctly applied. From the judgment affirming the decision of the Commission, employer appeals.\nAttorney General Lacy H. Thornburg, by Assistant Attorney General Linda Anne Morris, for petitioner-appellant.\nHensley, Huggard, Seigle, Obiol, and Bousman, by John A. Obiol, for respondent-appellee Featherston.\nC. Coleman Billingsley, Jr. for respondent-appellee Employment Security Commission."
  },
  "file_name": "0102-01",
  "first_page_order": 134,
  "last_page_order": 137
}