By An administrative law judge did not provide adequate findings of fact for the South Dakota Supreme Court to determine whether a worker at DemKota Ranch Beef who was fired deserves unemployment benefits.
That’s why justices remanded the case back to the administrative law judge to add more information so an appellate court can meaningfully review the case.
The case dates back to 2021 when the beef processing plant on the south edge of town fired Jeffrey Bankston, who was hired as a journeyman electrician in November 2016.
Bankston was fired by New Angus, the company that owns the plant, on March 22, 2021 for what the company deemed work-related misconduct, according to Supreme Court paperwork.
MORE: Brown County landowner not in contempt of court order in pipeline dispute
In short, another employee claimed that Bankston hugged her in a way that became uncomfortable, kissed her on the neck and made sexually suggestive or otherwise improper comments, per court paperwork.
Bankston contended that they hugged out of kindness and denied he ever kissed the woman or made inappropriate comments.
After being fired, Bankston applied for unemployment assistance benefits. Initially, the South Dakota Department of Labor & Regulation’s Reemployment Assistance division denied the request, determining he was discharged for misconduct and not eligible.
Bankston appealed that decision, which led to a hearing before an administrative law judge who heard evidence from both sides.
The woman testified that while the hugs from Bankston started out being grandfatherly, the nature of the hugs changed and the physical contact and comments became more sexual.
Bankston said he regularly hugged coworkers and was never made aware of any complaints.
Other employees testified that hugs among coworkers at the plant weren’t uncommon, though there were often side-hugs instead of full embraces.
While the administrative law judge determined Bankston was fired for misconduct and didn’t qualify for unemployment benefits, the findings in the decision were especially sparse, according to the Supreme Court.
More evidence of misconduct needed in decision
One employee credibly testified that Bankston’s hugs made her uncomfortable and the unwanted physical contact was not in the employer’s interests, according to the administrative law judge ruling. Further, it noted that physical conduct was discouraged during the COVID-19 pandemic for safety reasons.
But that, the justices ruled, is not enough.
“Notably, the (administrative law judge) did not make any findings regarding (the female employee’s) allegations that Bankston kissed her, made inappropriate sexual comments to her, or reached inside her jacket while giving her hugs.”
MORE: Court: Driver who hit 110 mph, then tree sentenced to prison
Bankston then appealed the administrative law judge’s decision to circuit court where a state judge ruled that the decision did not address “allegations that Bankston kissed her, put his arms into her coat, asked sexually inappropriate questions, nuzzled into her neck, or made inappropriate comments when a hug was refused.”
The finding that New Angus discouraged physical contact during the pandemic was “clearly erroneous” because no such evidence was presented, the state judge ruled.
Bankston’s hugging did not amount to misconduct nor violate the New Angus harassment policy, the judge ruled, adding that no evidence was presented that indicated Bankston was told to stop hugging coworkers.
As a result, the state judge ruled, Bankston was not fired because of misconduct and is entitled to unemployment benefits.
State judge’s decision appealed to Supreme Court
New Angus/DemKota Ranch Beef and the state Reemployment Assistance division then appealed the state judge’s decision to the Supreme Court.
Myren
“Because the (administrative law judge) failed to enter findings on the alleged sexual conduct and words, we cannot conduct a meaningful appellate review,” Justice Scott Myren wrote in a unanimous decision.
The Supreme Court reversed the state judge’s decision and remanded the case back to the administrative law judge to use “the existing record to issue a new proposed decision that contains sufficient factual findings to enable meaningful appellate review,” Myren wrote.
Either side can appeal the administrative law judge’s new decision.