## Facts

- Odean Garner, Sr. worked as a custodian for A & M Janitorial Services at the Great Lakes Naval Training Center and frequently received late paychecks.
- On August 5, 1991, Garner did not report to work because he had not received his paycheck; he told supervisor Susan Joyner he would not work the next day unless paid.
- On August 6, Joyner called Garner; he again stated he would not come in due to nonpayment, and Joyner said he was “only hurting himself” and that his absence would be noted.
- Garner also did not report August 7–9 because he still had not been paid; Joyner’s memorandum indicated she asked him to call if he would not report so she could schedule accordingly.
- The record contained no evidence that Garner’s absences caused concrete harm to A & M’s operations (e.g., uncompleted work, loss of productivity, complaints, or loss of business).
- Garner received his paycheck at the end of the workday on August 9, reported to work, and was terminated for violating company policy by failing to report for three days.
- A & M objected to Garner’s unemployment claim; an agency referee and the Board of Review found he was discharged for “misconduct” under § 602(A) of the Illinois Unemployment Insurance Act, and the circuit court affirmed on administrative review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Board’s finding that Garner was discharged for “misconduct” under § 602(A) was against the manifest weight of the evidence.
2. Whether Garner’s refusal to report to work until receiving overdue wages satisfied the statutory definition of “misconduct” (willful violation of a reasonable rule plus harm to the employer or repetition after warning).

## Decision

- The appellate court reversed the circuit court judgment affirming the Board and remanded with directions to award unemployment benefits.
- The court held Garner’s conduct did not constitute statutory “misconduct” under § 602(A).
- The court found the Board’s conclusion that the employer was harmed lacked evidentiary support.
- The court determined the statutory elements of willful misconduct coupled with proven harm or repeated violation after a sufficient warning were not established on this record.

## Legal Principles

- Under § 602(A), “misconduct” requires a deliberate and willful violation of a reasonable employer rule or policy and, in addition, either actual harm to the employer/other employees or repetition after a warning.
- The employer bears the burden to prove each statutory element of misconduct; findings of harm must be supported by record evidence, not assumption.
- Conduct tied to an employer’s failure to pay earned wages may be treated as a good-faith response rather than unjustified disobedience for purposes of the misconduct disqualification.
- On judicial review, an agency decision may be set aside where the opposite conclusion is clearly evident from the record (manifest-weight standard).

## Conclusion

The court held that an employee’s work refusal caused by the employer’s nonpayment of wages, absent record evidence of harm or a clear warning sufficient to satisfy the statute, is not “misconduct” disqualifying the employee from unemployment benefits.


Garner v. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 269 Ill. App. 3d 370, 646 N.E.2d 3 (Ill. App. Ct. 2d Dist. 1995)