A former Wellman City Administrator will receive unemployment benefits now that the Iowa Court of Appeals has determined the Employment Appeal Board’s decision to deny benefits was tainted by an error of law. Mark Baker was hired in September of 2011. He was caught shoplifting at a local business in December and was arrested in January of 2012. The council voted to terminate Baker in closed session after reviewing security footage.

Baker applied for unemployment benefits later in the year, but was denied by Workforce Development for being discharged for conduct that wasn’t in the best interest of his employer. After Baker appealed, an administrative law judge reversed the workforce development’s decision because Baker’s misconduct was not connected to his employment and the city had no policy regarding off duty conduct.

The city appealed, and the Employment Appeal Board reversed the judge’s decision in January of 2013, on the basis that as city administrator, Baker served as the face of city government, and whether his misconduct was on duty or off duty was irrelevant. Baker requested a rehearing, asserting that the city’s failure to comply with state code, in that they did not issue a formal notice of his termination, provide reasons for his termination, or notify him of his right to demand a public hearing, should preclude it from denying benefits.

After his request was denied, Baker petitioned the district court in March of 2013 for a judicial review of the Employment Appeal Board’s decision. In January of 2014, a hearing was held and it was determined the city’s failure to issue a written order was an important element in this case. Relying heavily on supreme court decisions, the district court ruled that the city’s failure to formally notice Baker of his termination kept it from asserting that misconduct served as a basis for denying him unemployment benefits, reversing the Employment Appeal Board’s decision.

This led the city to appeal the district court’s determination on judicial review. The Iowa Court of Appeals was tasked with reviewing the case. Citing the Employment Appeal Board’s failure to consider the matter of Wellman’s noncompliance with state code, the court of appeals affirmed the district court decision to reverse the board’s decision, allowing Baker to receive the benefits.