Petitioner: BRENT LANGLOIS
Respondent: NANCY MACIROWSKI, AAG OFFICE OF THE ATTY GENERAL
DECISION AND JUDGMENT
Rule 80C appeal from administrative agency action comes
before the court on the appeal of Petitioner Brent Langlois
from a decision of Respondent Maine Unemployment Insurance
Commission (MUIC) denying Petitioner's motion for
reconsideration of its prior determination to disqualify him
from unemployment benefits because he was discharged for
misconduct. See 26 M.R.S. § 1043(2), 1193(2).
This court has jurisdiction of the appeal pursuant to 26
M.R.S. §§ 1194(8) and 5 M.RS. § 11001 et
seq. See also M.R. Civ. P. 80C.
court elects to decide the appeal without oral argument.
See M.R. Civ. 80C(1) (oral argument to be scheduled
"[u]nless the court otherwise directs." See
also Lindemann v. Comm'n on Governmental Ethics &
Election Practices, 2008 ME 187, ¶26, 961 A.2d 538
(Rule 80C permits court to direct that oral argument not be
on the entire record, the court concludes that Respondent
MUIC's decision is supported by substantial evidence and
therefore denies the appeal and grants judgment to
following factual summary is based on the record on appeal.
References to testimony are based on the transcript of the
November 28, 2016 telephonic hearing on the employer's
appeal from the deputy's decision awarding benefits. The
transcript occupies pages 19-62 of the record, and page
references are to the record as paginated. See R.
Brent Langlois was employed as a stylist with Cara &
Company, a hair salon and spa in Falmouth owned and operated
by Cara Michaud, from 2010 until October 4, 2016, when he was
discharged. R. 36. During the two weeks before that
date, he had not been to work due to what he said were
injuries sustained in a four-wheeling accident. R. 50. The
injuries were not work-related and occurred outside the scope
of his employment.
October 4 Petitioner Langlois telephoned his employer to say
that he would be out for a third consecutive week due to the
same injuries. R. 39-40. At that point in the telephone
conversation, Cara Michaud, the owner, requested that he
provide a doctor's note to confirm the injuries and his
need for time off work in order to convalesce. Id.
Petitioner's response to the request is disputed. Cara
Michard testified that Petitioner responded to the request by
saying he would provide a doctor's note if the employer
paid for the doctor's visit. R. 40. Petitioner
acknowledged asking Ms. Michaud, "Would you like to pay
for the doctor-for me to go to the doctor's?" R. 51.
point the telephone call ended. Ms. Michaud contends that the
Petitioner hung up on her. R. 41. Petitioner contends that
the call was dropped. R. 51. However, Petitioner did not call
back to resume the conversation. R. 4 Ms. Michaud and her
manager discussed the telephone conversation and agreed that
Petitioner should be terminated. R. 41.
least fifteen minutes after the first call had been
terminated, the manager called Petitioner back and told him
he was being terminated. R. 42-43. When he asked if it was
for hanging up on Ms. Michaud, the manager said it was. R.
42. However, Ms. Michaud asked the manager to call Petitioner
back and tell him that his termination was due to his
insistence that the employer pay for the doctor's note as
well as for the hang-up. R. 42-43. During her testimony, Ms.
Michaud cited previous instances in which Petitioner had
shown disrespect, not to her personally, but, as she put it,
to the business, including an instance in May 2016 when
Petitioner walked out on a client who was sitting in the
stylist's chair, with another client waiting. R. 46-47.
MUIC deputy initially granted benefits on the basis that the
employer had not met its burden to prove that the discharge
was for misconduct. R. 66-69. On the employer's appeal
and after hearing, the Division of Administrative Hearings
hearing officer ruled in favor of Cara & Company. R.
14-18 (Me. Unemp. Ins. Comm'n, Div. of Admin. Hrgs. Case
No. 2016 A 06204). That decision was upheld by the
Commission, R. 7-8 (Me. Unemp. Ins. Comm'n Dec. No.
16-C-06874), which also denied Petitioner's request for
reconsideration. R. 1-2 (Me. Unemp. Ins. Comm'n Dec. No.