Community Connections, Inc. v. Kellie Gunnoe and Scott A. Adkins, in his capacity as Acting Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia

IN THE INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS OF WEST VIRGINIA
FILED
June 11, 2025
COMMUNITY CONNECTIONS, INC.,
ASHLEY N. DEEM, CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
Employer Below, Petitioner INTERMEDIATE COURT OF APPEALS
OF WEST VIRGINIA

v.) No. 24-ICA-316 (WorkForce W. Va. Bd. of Rev. Case No. R-2024-0586)

KELLIE GUNNOE,
Claimant Below, Respondent

and

SCOTT A. ADKINS, in his capacity as Acting
Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia,
Respondent

MEMORANDUM DECISION

Petitioner Community Connections, Inc. (“Community Connections”) appeals the
July 11, 2024, decision of the WorkForce West Virginia Board of Review (“Board”) which
affirmed the decision of the administrative law judge (“ALJ”) to grant respondent Kellie
Gunnoe unemployment compensation benefits following her discharge from employment.
Ms. Gunnoe filed a response.1 Community Connections did not file a reply. Scott A.
Adkins, in his capacity as the Acting Commissioner of WorkForce West Virginia
(“WorkForce”), did not participate in this appeal.

This Court has jurisdiction over this appeal pursuant to West Virginia Code § 51-
11-4 (2024). After considering the parties’ arguments, the record on appeal, and the
applicable law, this Court finds there is error in the Board’s decision but no substantial
question of law. For the reasons set forth below, a memorandum decision vacating the
decision and remanding to the Board for further proceedings is appropriate under Rule 21
of the West Virginia Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Community Connections is grant funded by the West Virginia Department of Health
and Human Resources to provide direct emergency and family support services to local
communities throughout Southern West Virginia. It has eight local community family
support centers located in Putnam, Mason, Clay, Boone, Mingo, Greenbrier, Wyoming,
and Raleigh Counties. Ms. Gunnoe was the Program Director of the Raleigh County family

1
Community Connections is represented by David J. Mincer, Esq. Ms. Gunnoe is
represented by Anthony M. Salvatore, Esq.

1
support center and was employed by Community Connections from August 14, 2022, until
her termination on January 25, 2024.

After her termination, Ms. Gunnoe filed a claim for unemployment compensation
benefits. On February 26, 2024, a claims deputy from WorkForce found Ms. Gunnoe was
entitled to unemployment benefits because Community Connections failed to present
evidence that she committed misconduct. Community Connections timely appealed the
deputy’s decision to an ALJ. The ALJ held a telephonic hearing on March 28, 2024, and
issued a written decision on April 5, 2024, affirming the decision of the deputy. Community
Connections appealed this decision to the Board and requested a new hearing arguing that
the ALJ refused to admit significant documents into evidence. On May 9, 2024, the Board
remanded the matter back to the ALJ for a de novo hearing. On May 23, 2024, the ALJ
held a re-hearing during which Ms. Gunnoe, Community Connections’ Executive Director
Gary Puckett, Community Connections’ Human Resources Director Natalie Keaton,
Community Connections’ family support center liaison Crystale Farmer, and Community
Connections’ Assistant Director Dr. Jamie Styons appeared and testified. Counsel for both
Community Connections and Ms. Gunnoe also appeared.

At this hearing, Mr. Puckett testified that Ms. Gunnoe was discharged for
insubordination. Mr. Puckett, who was Ms. Gunnoe’s supervisor, detailed a series of
incidents in which Ms. Gunnoe was disrespectful to him and blatantly refused to comply
with workplace policy and directives. Ms. Keaton, Ms. Farmer, and Dr. Styons all similarly
testified to multiple instances where Ms. Gunnoe was disrespectful and insubordinate to
Mr. Puckett and where Ms. Gunnoe violated policies and procedures related to Community
Connections’ credit card policy limiting expenditures to $500 unless prior approval was
obtained; its policy on timesheet submission for payroll purposes; its timekeeping policy;
and its policy on submission of expenditure receipts for reimbursement. Ms. Gunnoe
testified that these incidents were taken out of context, and she denied that she violated
company policy.

On May 31, 2024, the ALJ issued a written decision that affirmed the decision of
the deputy, found Ms. Gunnoe was not discharged for misconduct, and found she was
qualified for unemployment compensation benefits. The ALJ held that Ms. Gunnoe never
received any disciplinary warnings and that any of the insubordinate behavior that was
alleged was Ms. Gunnoe simply advising her employer that she disagreed with its actions.
The ALJ disregarded the corrective action plan attached to Community Connections’
January 24, 2024, letter and held that Ms. Gunnoe did not commit any alleged instances of
misconduct after this letter was issued. Community Connections appealed this decision to
the Board, and the Board issued a decision on July 11, 2024, which adopted the findings
of the ALJ and affirmed the ALJ’s decision to grant Ms. Gunnoe unemployment benefits.
It is from this order that Community Connections now appeals.

In this appeal, our standard of review is as follows:

2
The findings of fact of the Board of Review of [WorkForce West Virginia]
are entitled to substantial deference unless a reviewing court believes the
findings are clearly wrong. If the question on review is one purely of law, no
deference is given and the standard of judicial review by the court is de novo.

Syl. Pt. 3, Adkins v. Gatson, 192 W. Va. 561, 453 S.E.2d 395 (1994).

On appeal, Community Connections asserts four assignments of error. First, it
argues the Board erred in affirming the ALJ’s decision that Ms. Gunnoe was not discharged
for misconduct. Second, it argues the Board erred when it concluded Ms. Gunnoe had not
been issued prior disciplinary warnings. Third, Community Connections argues the Board
erred in concluding that the cover letter advising Ms. Gunnoe of her discharge did not state
she was being discharged for misconduct when the evidence in the record showed a
detailed, four-page corrective action plan was attached to that cover letter. Finally, it argues
the Board erred when it relied on the fact that the numerous incidents of insubordination
and policy violations did not occur immediately prior to Ms. Gunnoe’s discharge.

Here, the decisions entered by the ALJ and the Board broadly determined that Ms.
Gunnoe was not discharged for misconduct. The ALJ’s decision, as affirmed by the Board,
did not adequately discuss the contrasting reasons for terminating Ms. Gunnoe that were
provided in the January 24, 2024, letter and the attached corrective action plan. Both of
these documents were admitted into evidence and were given to Ms. Gunnoe on the date
of her termination. The January 24, 2024, letter of termination generally stated that Ms.
Gunnoe was being terminated because Community Connections was moving forward in a
different direction. In contrast, the corrective action plan contained a detailed list of alleged
misconduct committed by Ms. Gunnoe. In the May 31, 2024, decision, the ALJ made a
finding of fact that “[i]n the January 24, 2024 letter of discharge, there were no allegations
by the employer as to any inactions by the claimant or any acts of misconduct which
resulted in the claimant’s separation from employment.” Based on this finding, it appears
the ALJ did not consider the corrective action plan and instead relied on the January 24,
2024, letter of termination only. However, the ALJ’s decision fails to state why the
corrective action plan was disregarded.

Further, neither the decision by the Board nor the decision of the ALJ provide any
meaningful analysis as to whether Ms. Gunnoe committed simple or gross misconduct.
West Virginia Code § 21A-6-3 (2020) provides that an individual is disqualified from
obtaining unemployment compensation benefits for certain periods of time and potentially
entirely if the individual was terminated from their employment due to misconduct or gross
misconduct. The determination as to whether Ms. Gunnoe committed misconduct is central
to the issues on appeal, and the decisions of the ALJ and the Board failed to make clear
findings of fact or conclusions of law to assist this Court in resolving these disputes. For
these reasons, this Court is unable to determine if the Board relied on an incorrect legal or
factual finding in making its determination that Ms. Gunnoe did not commit misconduct

3
because no meaningful findings were made. Therefore, we remand this matter to the Board
with directions to address these issues through the entry of an amended order that contains
sufficient findings of fact and conclusions of law related to the determination of whether
simple misconduct, gross misconduct, or no misconduct was committed to permit
meaningful appellate review, including the taking of additional evidence, if necessary.

Accordingly, the July 11, 2024, order is vacated, and the case is remanded to the
Board for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

Vacated and Remanded for further proceedings.

ISSUED: June 11, 2025

CONCURRED IN BY:

Chief Judge Charles O. Lorensen
Judge Daniel W. Greear

DISSENTING:

Judge S. Ryan White

WHITE, J., dissenting:

I respectfully dissent from the majority’s decision to vacate and remand the decision
of the administrative law judge which was adopted by the Board because while it may not
accurately state all the facts and lacks analysis on simple misconduct, the conclusion that
Ms. Gunnoe was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits remains correct.
Accordingly, I would affirm the administrative law judge’s May 31, 2024, decision.
The Supreme Court of Appeals of West Virginia has explained that a reviewing court
“may, on appeal, affirm the judgment of the lower court when it appears that such judgment
is correct on any legal ground disclosed by the record, regardless of the ground, reason, or
theory assigned by the lower court as the basis for its judgment.” Syl. Pt. 3, Barnett v.
Wolfolk, 149 W. Va. 246, 140 S.E.2d 466 (1965); Syl. Pt. 2, Adkins v. Gatson, 218 W. Va.
332, 624 S.E.2d 769 (2005) (per curiam).
First, I will note that, despite Community Connections’ argument that the
administrative law judge erred by finding that Ms. Gunnoe’s dismissal letter contains no
allegations of misconduct, the administrative law judge is correct. The letter does not

4
mention misconduct at all. In fact, the letter states that Community Connections was
dismissing Ms. Gunnoe because it had decided to go “in a new direction.” However, the
corrective action plan document that was attached to Ms. Gunnoe’s dismissal letter contains
numerous allegations of misconduct.
As the majority noted, the administrative law judge addressed the issue of gross
misconduct in the decision on appeal (and found none), but did not address simple
misconduct.
For purposes of determining the level of disqualification for unemployment
compensation benefits under West Virginia Code § 21A-6-3, simple
misconduct is conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of an
employer’s interests as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of
standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his
employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to
manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an
intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the
employee’s duties and obligations to his employer.
Syl. Pt. 7, Dailey v. Bd. of Rev., W. Va. Bureau of Emp’t Programs, 214 W. Va. 419, 589
S.E.2d 797 (2003).
With this definition in mind, a review of the corrective action plan attached to Ms.
Gunnoe’s dismissal letter demonstrates that the allegations contained therein, even if true,
do not rise to the level of simple misconduct. Furthermore, the employer failed to issue Ms.
Gunnoe a write-up for anything alleged in said corrective action plan before it terminated
her employment. If an employer were of the opinion that an employee’s conduct, as alleged
in the corrective action plan, amounted to that described in the definition of “simple
misconduct,” a reasonable employer would have written up that employee.
Accordingly, as Ms. Gunnoe’s conduct was neither simple nor gross misconduct,
the administrative law judge and Board correctly found she should not have been
disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Thus, the ultimate decision of the
administrative law judge, which was adopted by the Board, was substantively correct even
though the administrative law judge could have, procedurally, written a more thorough
analysis in his final order. In sum, this Court could and should have affirmed the judgment
of the lower tribunals because the judgment is correct for legal grounds disclosed by the
record, regardless of the grounds actually assigned by the administrative law judge and the
Board as the basis for their judgment.
For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.

5