Court of Appeals Affirms Finding That Bonus was not Irregular
In Menard, Inc. v. Scheffert, No. 14-1029 (Iowa App. 2014), the Court of Appeals concluded that claimant's rate, which was computed on the basis of having received bonuses, was properly computed by the agency. The court concluded that the commissioner's finding that claimant's bonuses were not irregular was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
Claimant received a bonus each year that her department was profitable. From 1996 to 2008, the date of injury in the case, claimant received some amount of bonus, called the TPS bonus. Additionally, claimant was eligible for an IPS bonus if the store was profitable. Neither bonus was guaranteed, and could be revised downward based on fines assessed against employees. Claimant received both a TPS and IPS bonus in the year of the injury, and the agency included these bonuses in determining claimant's rate. The district court concluded that the agency's findings on this point were not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
The Court of Appeals noted that when an agency has been vested with the authority to apply law to fact, "we will only disturb the agency's application if it is irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable." A decision is irrational if it is not governed by or according to reason. It is illogical if contrary to or devoid of logic. It is unjustifiable "when it has no foundation in fact or reason."
The court noted that irregular bonuses were excluded from the determination of gross earnings. Because the decision of the agency was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable, the finding was affirmed. The court noted that claimant had received some amount of bonus every year she had worked for Menard. The evidence further demonstrated that claimant was paid a bonus for her work in 2008. The decision of the agency was affirmed.
Claimant received a bonus each year that her department was profitable. From 1996 to 2008, the date of injury in the case, claimant received some amount of bonus, called the TPS bonus. Additionally, claimant was eligible for an IPS bonus if the store was profitable. Neither bonus was guaranteed, and could be revised downward based on fines assessed against employees. Claimant received both a TPS and IPS bonus in the year of the injury, and the agency included these bonuses in determining claimant's rate. The district court concluded that the agency's findings on this point were not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable.
The Court of Appeals noted that when an agency has been vested with the authority to apply law to fact, "we will only disturb the agency's application if it is irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable." A decision is irrational if it is not governed by or according to reason. It is illogical if contrary to or devoid of logic. It is unjustifiable "when it has no foundation in fact or reason."
The court noted that irregular bonuses were excluded from the determination of gross earnings. Because the decision of the agency was not irrational, illogical or wholly unjustifiable, the finding was affirmed. The court noted that claimant had received some amount of bonus every year she had worked for Menard. The evidence further demonstrated that claimant was paid a bonus for her work in 2008. The decision of the agency was affirmed.
Comments
Post a Comment