Mueller v. SCDEW

THIS OPINION HAS NO PRECEDENTIAL VALUE. IT SHOULD NOT BE
CITED OR RELIED ON AS PRECEDENT IN ANY PROCEEDING
EXCEPT AS PROVIDED BY RULE 268(d)(2), SCACR.

THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA
In The Court of Appeals

Billie D. Mueller, Appellant,

v.

South Carolina Department of Employment and
Workforce, and Ebtron, Inc., Respondents.

Appellate Case No. 2014-002489

Appeal From The Administrative Law Court
Ralph King Anderson, III, Administrative Law Judge

Unpublished Opinion No. 2017-UP-334
Heard June 1, 2017 – Filed August 2, 2017

AFFIRMED

Billie D. Mueller, of Davis Station, pro se.

Kristine Louise Cato, of Blair Cato Pickren Casterline,
LLC, of Columbia, for Respondent Ebtron, Inc.

Sandra Bell Grooms, of The South Carolina Department
of Employment and Workforce, of Columbia, for
Respondent South Carolina Department of Employment
and Workforce.
PER CURIAM: Billie D. Mueller appeals the South Carolina Administrative
Law Court's (ALC) order, finding Mueller was ineligible for unemployment
benefits because she was terminated from her employment with Ebtron, Inc.
(Ebtron) for misconduct. On appeal, Mueller argues the ALC erred in (1) finding
her actions constituted misconduct under section 41-35-120 of the South Carolina
Code (Supp. 2016), (2) finding she willfully failed to perform her job duties, and
(3) allowing Greg McBride's testimony and his submission of the request for
information. We affirm1 pursuant to Rule 220(b), SCACR, and the following
authorities:

1. As to issues 1 and 2: Risher v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 393 S.C.
198, 204, 712 S.E.2d 428, 431 (2011) ("A decision of the ALC should be
upheld . . . if it is supported by substantial evidence in the record."); Kiawah Dev.
Partners, II v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 411 S.C. 16, 28, 766 S.E.2d
707, 715 (2014) ("In determining whether the ALC's decision was supported by
substantial evidence, the [c]ourt need only find, looking at the entire record on
appeal, evidence from which reasonable minds could reach the same conclusion as
the ALC."); § 41-35-120(2)(a) (providing an insured worker is ineligible for
benefits if the worker is discharged for misconduct connected with the worker's
employment); id. ("'[M]isconduct' is limited to conduct evincing such wilfull and
wanton disregard of an employer's interests 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 the 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's interest or of the employee's
duties and obligations to his employer."); Mickens v. Southland Exch.-Joint
Venture, 305 S.C. 127, 130, 406 S.E.2d 363, 365 (1991) ("[W]e interpreted the
phrase 'discharge for misconduct' to include 'the disregard of the standard of
behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from an employee.'" (emphasis
by court) (footnote omitted) (quoting Lee v. S.C. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 277 S.C. 586,
588, 291 S.E.2d 378, 379 (1982))); id. ("[T]he general rule is that, where the
employer's request is reasonable, a refusal to comply will constitute misconduct,
justifying a discharge for cause."); DeGroot v. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 285 S.C. 209,
212, 328 S.E.2d 668, 670 (Ct. App. 1985) (finding substantial evidence supported
the Employment Security Commission's finding an employee was discharged due
to misconduct because the employee had the ability to avoid numerous
typographical mistakes and work at the standard her employer could rightfully
expect).

1
We decide this case without oral argument pursuant to Rule 215, SCACR.
2. As to issue 3: Brown v. S.C. Dep't of Health & Envtl. Control, 348 S.C. 507,
519, 560 S.E.2d 410, 417 (2002) (finding issues not raised to and ruled on by the
ALC are not preserved for appellate review).2

AFFIRMED.

SHORT, WILLIAMS, and KONDUROS, JJ., concur.

2
We also find Mueller's arguments she was not given Exhibits One and Two or a
copy of the "telephone hearing regulations" are unpreserved because these issues
were not raised to or ruled on by the hearing officer, Appellate Panel, or ALC. See
Brown, 348 S.C. at 519, 560 S.E.2d at 417 (finding issues not raised to and ruled
on by the ALC are not preserved for appellate review).