McClinton v. MDES
| Docket Number: | 2005-CC-01961-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-17-2006 Opinion Author: SOUTHWICK, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Hearsay - Misconduct - M.R.E. 803(6) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): ROBERTS, J. Concurs in Result Only: BARNES, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-13-2005 Appealed from: Lauderdale County Circuit Court Judge: Larry Eugene Roberts Disposition: AFFIRMED MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY Case Number: 05-CV-010® |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | LUKE T. MCCLINTON |
DAVID H. LINDER |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY | 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 - Hearsay - Misconduct - M.R.E. 803(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Luke McClinton was employed as an x-ray technician at Rush Hospital. McClinton was terminated for insubordination, inappropriate and rude behavior with co-workers, use of profanity, and not performing his job duties. McClinton filed for unemployment benefits. A claims examiner found that McClinton’s termination was due to misconduct and benefits were denied. McClinton appealed and received a favorable decision from an appeals referee. Rush appealed to the Board of Review which denied benefits. The circuit court affirmed, and McClinton appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Poor job performance and insubordination were the reasons for discharge. McClinton argues that the evidence to support those claims was all uncorroborated hearsay. Administrative agency hearings are not limited to strict rules of evidence. If hearsay, even if not corroborated in the traditional sense, is highly probative because it has strong indicia of reliability, it can at least in many situations be substantial evidence. 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. For purposes of unemployment benefits, insubordination is a form of misconduct. The evidence is largely hearsay that McClinton had frequent problems with coworkers and supervisors. The file from which McClinton’s supervisor was testifying apparently had significant documentation of the events underlying the various complaints, though those documents would almost certainly have been hearsay. If the referee actually admitted some of the documents, they do not appear in the appellate record. Had these documents been in evidence, the case would be fairly strong that credible and probative evidence existed of the kind generally relied upon when reviewing the history of a person’s employment. This credible evidence was hearsay, but it was the kind of hearsay evidence that would have been admissible in court under M.R.E. 803(6). The indicia of trustworthiness that allows the evidence to be admitted through a hearsay exception is the equivalent of corroboration. The fact that the actual documents do not appear in the appellate record does not undermine their use. They were offered, McClinton did not object, and there are indications that they were actually admitted. Thus, there was substantial, credible, corroborated evidence of McClinton’s multiple acts of insubordination. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
