604, 617, 538 P.2d 702 (1975). The conditions under which a court may grant relief when an agency action is challenged are defined by K.S.A. 77-621(c). Dillard’s sought relief in the district court under K.S.A. 77-621(c)(4), which authorizes judicial relief if “the agency has erroneously interpreted or applied the law,” and K.S.A. 77-621(c)(7), which authorizes relief if “the agency action is based on a determination of fact, made or implied by the agency, that is not supported by evidence that is substantial when viewed in light of the record as a whole.” The only pertinent issue of fact that is disputed is whether Cook was terminated for cause. The burden of proving cause logically falls on Dillard’s. See Farmland Foods, Inc. v. Abendroth, 225 Kan. 742, Syl. ¶ 1, 594 P.2d 184 (1979) (<HOLDING>). In proceedings before KDHR, Dillard’s stated
holding that defendants bear the burden of proving contributory negligence by a preponderance of the evidence holding that burden is upon employer to demonstrate by preponderance of evidence that claimant committed act in question holding employer has burden of proving employee misconduct by a preponderance of the evidence when disputing a claim for unemployment compensation holding that the burden of proving that the employee did not make reasonable efforts is on the defendant holding at trial a criminal defendant has the burden to prove his insanity by a preponderance of the evidence