Patterson v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2011-CC-00824-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-07-2012
Opinion Author: Russell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b)
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton, Maxwell and Fair, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-12-2011
Appealed from: Alcorn County Circuit Court
Judge: Jim S. Pounds
Disposition: AFFIRMED DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY’S DECISION TO DENY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Case Number: CV10-633-P-A

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Sonya Patterson




PRO SE



 

Appellee: Mississippi Department of Employment Security ALBERT B. WHITE LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY  

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 - Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b)

Summary of the Facts: Sonya Patterson was employed with Direct General Insurance Agency as an agent manager. In 2010, she sent an email to her supervisor, Noel Coward, stating that Rides-to-Go was sending all of its white customers to another insurance company and only African-American customers to Direct. A telephone conversation occurred between Patterson and Allison Albarracin, an employee for Rides. Following the conversation, Alberracin called Coward complaining about Patterson’s accusations of racism, and asked Coward to investigate. Following Coward’s investigation, Patterson was terminated. Patterson filed for unemployment benefits, which were granted by the claims examiner. The examiner found Direct had failed to prove that Patterson was discharged for misconduct. Direct appealed to the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. The administrative law judge found that Patterson was discharged for willfully and wantonly violating the employer’s policy for rudeness, unprofessional and unethical conduct, asking a vendor or a company referring customers a racial question, and dishonesty during the investigation. Thus, the ALJ found that Patterson had been discharged for misconduct and was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. Patterson appealed to the MDES Board of Review, which affirmed. Patterson appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Patterson appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Although Patterson argues that Direct failed to provide substantial evidence that her termination was due to her misconduct, she fails to provide or cite any authority in support. Failure to cite any authority is a procedural bar. In addition, her argument is without merit. Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) provides that an individual may be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work. An employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits where the employee violated an employer's policy or otherwise failed to meet a required condition of employment. Direct’s employment policy lists unprofessional conduct, such as not telling the truth or being dishonest in an investigation, as grounds for termination. The standards of behavior prohibit the use of any language or other conduct that conflicts with the company’s goals, including harassment or rudeness directed towards vendors and dishonesty. Coward testified that he spoke to Patterson, who admitted that she had called Albarracin to ask about the pattern she noticed of Rides sending only African-American customers to Direct and white customers to Alpha. Coward stated he told Patterson that such a question was unprofessional. When he asked Patterson to apologize, she refused and stated that if she did apologize, Coward would have to bail her out of jail. Coward testified that when he asked Patterson to write out her side of the story, she changed her story and stated it was Albarracin who actually brought up the alleged racial pattern. Coward also testified that one of Patterson’s witnesses informed him that he did not overhear the conversation between Patterson and Albarracin as alleged by Patterson because he was with a customer. The meaning of the term ‘misconduct,’ as used in the unemployment compensation statute, is conduct evincing such wilful 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. Patterson’s conduct is in line with the definition of “misconduct.”


Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court