AI Generated Opinion Summaries

This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.

Facts

• Justin Vermillion was employed by Triad National Security, LLC as a Cyber Counterintelligence Officer. During his employment, Vermillion initiated a personal relationship with a woman he met on an online dating application, who was a foreign national from a sensitive country. Vermillion used his access to classified databases and contacts at the Department of Homeland Security to investigate the woman's background without disclosing his personal interest. Triad has policies requiring the reporting of personal or professional relationships with foreign nationals from sensitive countries and prohibiting actions that could be perceived as a conflict of interest. Vermillion was terminated for misuse of authority and violation of Triad’s code of conduct (paras 12-15).

Procedural History

• District Court of Los Alamos County: Reversed the Board of Review's determination that Vermillion was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits due to being discharged for misconduct.

Parties' Submissions

• Petitioner-Respondent (Vermillion): Argued that the policies were not clear in defining "personal relationship" and that his actions were out of an abundance of caution. He also claimed that he reported the relationship when it became intimate and that his actions did not constitute misconduct under the law (paras 16, 25-27).
• Respondent-Petitioner (Department and Triad): Argued that Vermillion was discharged for using his position to access classified information for personal reasons, which was unauthorized and violated Triad's policies. They maintained that this conduct constituted misconduct sufficient to deny unemployment benefits (paras 16-17).

Legal Issues

• Whether the Board of Review's determination that Vermillion was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits due to discharge for misconduct was supported by substantial evidence and not contrary to law (para 1).
• Whether Vermillion's actions constituted "misconduct" under the Unemployment Compensation Law, considering the totality of circumstances (paras 7-9).

Disposition

• The New Mexico Court of Appeals affirmed the decision of the Board and reversed the district court, holding that Vermillion was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits due to being discharged for misconduct (para 33).

Reasons

• The Court, with Judges Gerald E. Baca, J. Miles Hanisee, and Jane B. Yohalem concurring, found that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary, capricious, or contrary to law. The Court emphasized that misconduct in unemployment compensation law is limited to conduct demonstrating a willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interests or carelessness or negligence to a degree suggesting equal culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design. The Court concluded that Vermillion's use of classified information for personal reasons was unauthorized and constituted misconduct. The Court also noted that the district court improperly departed from the standard of review by not considering evidence supporting the Board's findings. The Court rejected Vermillion's argument that there was ambiguity in the standard of review for administrative decisions and upheld the Board's credibility determinations and findings of fact (paras 3-32).