RENEE L. HARE, Petitioner-Appellant, vs. EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and CINDY'S CLEANING SERVICES, Respondent-Appellee.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF IOWA
No. 7-875 / 07-0928
Filed November 29, 2007
RENEE L. HARE,
Petitioner-Appellant,
vs.
EMPLOYMENT APPEAL BOARD and
CINDY’S CLEANING SERVICES,
Respondent-Appellee.
________________________________________________________________
Appeal from the Iowa District Court for Worth County, Stephen Carroll,
Judge.
Petitioner-appellant appeals from a district court decision affirming the
Employment Appeal Board. AFFIRMED.
Evelyn Ocheltree, Legal Services Corporation, Mason City, for appellant.
Richard Autry, Employment Appeal Board, Des Moines, for appelleeEmployment Appeal Board.
Patrick Byrne, Clear Lake, for appellee-Cindy’s Cleaning Service.
Considered by Sackett, C.J., Vaitheswaran and Baker, JJ.
2
SACKETT, C.J.
Petitioner-appellant Renee L. Hare (Hare) sought unemployment benefits
following her discharge from employment as a full-time cleaning assistant with
appellee Cindy’s Cleaning Service (Cindy’s).
Cindy’s protested.
Hare was
initially allowed benefits but Cindy’s appealed the decision. A hearing was held
before an administrative law judge. After hearing evidence the judge denied
Hare benefits ruling that she was discharged for soliciting her employer’s
customers in order to start her own cleaning business which she had started at
the time of the hearing. The judge ruled Hare’s conduct was a willful and a
material breach of the duties and obligations to the employer and in substantial
disregard of the standards of behavior the employer had the right to expect of
her. Finding that Hare’s separation was disqualifying, the earlier decision was
reversed and it was determined Hare was not eligible to receive unemployment
insurance benefits because she was discharged from work for misconduct. The
decision was appealed to the Employment Appeal Board which reviewed the
record and in a two to one decision affirmed the administrative law judge’s
decision and adopted it finding of facts and conclusions of law as it own.
The case was appealed to the district court. In a complete and wellwritten decision, which we adopt as our own, the district court affirmed the
agency.
AFFIRMED.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
