I dissent. Apparently everyone in the administrative and judicial hierarchy is out of step but my colleagues.
The county civil service commission found that this plaintiff was insubordinate in refusing to follow reasonable instructions of her employer.
The administrative law judge found that her “continued acts of insubordination” were “wilful and deliberate,” as a result of which she was “discharged for misconduct connected with her work under [Unemployment Insurance] Code Section 1256.”
The Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board reviewed the evidence and unanimously held that “the insubordination constituted misconduct within the meaning of the code.”
The superior court made an independent review of the record and then made the following findings of fact and conclusions of law:
“Findings of Fact
“1. The claimant Nellie [sic] L. Amador was a tissue technician at the Chope Community Hospital in San Mateo County.
“2. Claimant was instructed by her superiors to take random cuts or random samples from selected specimens.
“3. The instructions given to the claimant were reasonable and within her job description.
“4. Claimant refused to obey the instructions given to her and was found to have been insubordinate by the San Mateo County Civil Service Commission.
“5. In refusing to perform the tasks assigned to her, after having been repeatedly warned that failure to perform said tasks would result in her discharge, claimant was insubordinate.
“Conclusions of Law
“1. Claimant’s continued and wilful refusal to perform the duties as requested after having been found to be insubordinate is sufficient cause for petitioner’s discharge.
*689“2. Petitioner was guilty of misconduct and her discharge based thereon is sufficient cause to deny petitioner unemployment insurance benefits under section 1256 of the California Unemployment Insurance Code.” (Italics added.)
There was no challenge to the foregoing findings of fact; therefore they are controlling on appeal. (Hahn v. Hahn (1954) 123 Cal.App.2d 97, 102 [266 P.2d 519].)
The matter then proceeded to the Court of Appeal, which unanimously affirmed the trial court judgment. The Court of Appeal reminded the parties that the harm required to disqualify a discharged employee for unemployment insurance benefits is not limited to economic consequences. “When the authority of those in whom the employer has confided responsibility for the day-to-day operation of the business is flouted, the interests of the employer suffer.” (Rowe v. Hansen (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 512, 523 [116 Cal.Rptr. 16]; McCrae v. California Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1973) 30 Cal.App.3d 89, 95 [106 Cal.Rptr. 159].) The court observed that plaintiff repeatedly refused to follow orders from her supervisors; she was asked to perform grosscuttings in order to provide for a necessary function when the only other technician was absent. From this evidence the court could reasonably infer that plaintiff’s refusal adversely affected the interests of her employer. The Court of Appeal found substantial evidence that plaintiff’s misconduct harmed her employer.
In view of the foregoing record, reviewed over and over by five successive layers of administrative and judicial authority, I cannot allow sympathy for one who is denied unemployment benefits to outweigh the well established principle that misconduct and insubordination should not be rewarded. This employee was ordered to perform tasks that, as the trial court found, were within her job description. She received numerous warnings, not the least of which was from the civil service commission, that in refusing to follow reasonable orders of her employer she was being insubordinate. Nevertheless she persisted in prescribing her own rules of conduct, like the offending nurse in Davis v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1974) 43 Cal.App.3d 71 [117 Cal.Rptr. 463],
There are occasions when stubbornness in devotion to even misguided principle is to be respected. That is euphemistically called “good faith error in judgment” (Delgado v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd. (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 788, 792 [116 Cal.Rptr. 497]). Under these circumstances, however, the law does not permit a recalcitrant employee to dictate em*690ployment conditions in conflict with the job description pursuant to which she was hired.
The judgment should be affirmed.