Court Summaries, 1216 WYBJ, Vol. 39 No. 6. 52
| Author | P. Craig Silva Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C. |
P. Craig Silva Williams, Porter, Day & Neville P.C.
Billy Clark v. State of Wyoming, ex rel., Department of Workforce Services, Unemployment Insurance Commission
2016 WY 89
S-16-0034
September 1, 2016
This case decides the parameters of the term “misconduct” and whether repeated negligence could amount to “misconduct.” In this case, Billy Clark, the employee, was a fuel truck driver. In August 2014, he mixed regular fuel and premium fuel; he was reprimanded for his error. On September 14, 2014, Mr. Clark again mixed diesel fuel and unleaded gasoline, resulting in his termination from employment. Mr. Clark was initially granted unemployment benefits. The employer appealed and won. The district court affirmed and the Wyoming Supreme Court upheld the district court.
“Misconduct” by statute has been defined as “an action of an employee which indicates an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or the commonly accepted duties, obligations and responsibilities of an employee.” Wyo. Stat. § 27-3-102 (a)(xxiv). “Misconduct” does not include ordinary negligence in isolated instances, good faith errors in judgment or discretion; or inefficiency or failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity. Id. Under this definition the Court held repeated acts of negligence can disqualify the employee from unemployment benefits because repeated acts of negligence can be misconduct.
Skuyler Salinas v. The State of Wyoming
2016 WY 97
S-16-0066
October 10, 2016
Ashley Martinez obtained a six month stalking order against Skuyler Salinas. Mr. Salinas violated the order by texting Ms. Martinez thereby resulting in a charge and conviction of one count of violating the protection order—a felony. The State attempted to introduce 404(b) evidence on Mr. Salinas’ behavior toward Ms. Martinez and her family outside the time period of the protection order. The district court excluded much of the evidence to include preventing the witnesses from testifying that Mr. Salinas was arrested, charged or pled guilty to any charge. When Ms. Martinez testified at trial she stated Mr. Salinas had two active warrants—one in Colorado and one in Cheyenne. A mistrial was sought, which was denied by the trial court. The jury was instructed to disregard the comments. Ms. Martinez’s father took the stand next. He was going to be used to introduce exhibits of text messages between himself and Mr. Salinas. Counsel for Mr. Salinas objected on the basis he had requested the text messages, but they had not been provided until the morning of trial. The trial court allowed testimony on the text messages, but did not allow the exhibits, which had not been produced prior to trial, into evidence.
The first question on appeal was whether the statement as to Mr. Salinas’ alleged warrants should have led to a mistrial. The Wyoming Supreme Court held it should not because the statement was made by the witness, was not responsive to a question, and was not prejudicial especially when the Court gave a curative instruction.
The second question is whether the discovery violation was properly sanctioned. The Wyoming Supreme Court held the trial court properly excluded the text messages in paper form and not excluding the testimony properly balanced the interests of the parties and properly provided a sanction against the State.
ELA v. AAB
2016 WY 98
S-16-0090
October 13, 2016
The identified parties were never...
To continue reading
Request your trial