Armstrong v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm.
| Docket Number: | 2002-CC-01863-COA Linked Case(s): 2002-CC-01863-COA ; 2002-CC-01863-COA |
|
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-02-2004 Opinion Author: Griffis, J. Holding: Reversed and Remanded |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Myers and Chandler, JJ. Dissenting Author : Lee, J. Concurs in Result Only: Irving, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-05-2002 Appealed from: WASHINGTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Margaret Carey-McCray Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT SUSTAINED THE DISQUALIFICATION OF ARMSTRONG FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS AND AFFIRMED THE RULING OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW. Case Number: 2001-259 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | CALVIN E. ARMSTRONG |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION | ALBERT B. WHITE JOHN WESLEY GARRETT |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Unemployment benefits - Misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Calvin Armstrong was employed with the City of Greenville as a recreation supervisor. The City claimed that he was discharged for dereliction of work duties. Armstrong filed a claim for benefits with the Mississippi Employment Security Commission. The claims examiner disqualified Armstrong for benefits on the ground that he was discharged for misconduct. Armstrong appealed, and the appeals referee, the board of review, and the circuit court agreed that Armstrong’s actions constituted misconduct and denied benefits. Armstrong appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Armstrong argues that the Commission's findings were not based on substantial evidence that he engaged in misconduct. Misconduct is conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee. Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not misconduct. In this case, Armstrong’s actions may not be classified as misconduct. Armstrong says that he was given the latitude to make his own work schedule and that he cleaned the park grounds and the bathrooms when he arrived at the job site. There is nothing in the record to dispute his position that his supervisor visited the park late in the day after many people had used the facilities. Considering the Commission’s failure to file a brief, the Commission has not met its burden of showing by substantial, clear and convincing evidence that Armstrong’s conduct warranted disqualification from benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
