UI Court decision summary -- Love, Arletha v. Lakeside Animal Hosp. and LIRC (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee Co., November 20, 2000) - MC 630.09 - Falsification of record - time cards, records of time worked; MC 697 - Time clock - violation of employer rule - leaving work while punched in; PC 753 Judicial review, failure to prosecute/file brief

Wisconsin Labor and Industry Review Commission --
Summary of Wisconsin Court Decision relating to Unemployment Insurance

Subject: Arletha Love v. LIRC and Lakeside Animal Hospital, Ltd., Case 00 CV 001633 (Wis. Cir. Ct., Milwaukee County, November 20, 2000)

Digest Codes: MC 630.09 PC 753

The employee began work as a kennel worker in May 1992. She subsequently became a maintenance supervisor. She worked a split shift. In February 1999 she was talked to about being clocked in during nighttime hours but not being on the premises. She was instructed on clocking out procedures. In April 1999 an owner found that the employee was not in the building but was punched in. She later explained that she had forgotten to punch out. On two dates in May 1999 the employee was punched in but was not in the building. When confronted, the employee first denied leaving the building but later stated she left to go to dinner. The employee was discharged for falsifying her time cards. The commission found that the employee was discharged for misconduct and was not eligible for unemployment benefits.

The employee initiated an action for judicial review in the circuit court. In response to a court established briefing schedule, the plaintiff submitted a collection of documents relating to her employment history and the discharge but did not submit any argument.

Held: Judicial review of commission decisions is limited by statute. Findings of fact are binding on the courts. Commission conclusions of law are entitled to deference by the courts.

The employee’s documents do not assert a basis for overturning the commission’s decision. Nor do they establish that the statutory grounds dictate reversal of the commission’s decision. It is not the court’s role to surmise a petitioner’s argument in favor of review. The petitioner has the burden of proof to show that the agency’s interpretation is unreasonable. That was not done here.

Additionally the court believes that the commission’s findings of fact are supported by the record and that its conclusions of law are reasonable and not contrary to the statute. Commission decision affirmed. Benefits denied.

(LIRC decision)

Please note that this is a summary prepared by staff of the commission, not a verbatim reproduction of the court decision.

[ Search UC Decisions ] - [ UC Digest - Main Index ] - [ UC Legal Resources ] - [ LIRC Home Page ]