Dillon v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2003-SA-01554-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 10-05-2004 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Bridges and Lee, P.JJ., Irving, Myers, Griffis and Barnes, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Ishee, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-22-2003 Appealed from: Lincoln County Circuit Court Judge: Mike Smith Disposition: AFFIRMED COMMISSION Case Number: 2003-027 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Kenneth O. Dillon |
PRO SE |
||
| Appellee: | Mississippi Employment Security Commission and Clark Construction | ALBERT B. WHITE B. RAY THERRELL |
|
|
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: | Kenneth Dillon was terminated from employment with Clark Construction and applied for unemployment benefits. The Board of Review of Mississippi Employment Security Commission denied his unemployment benefits on the grounds of misconduct. The circuit court affirmed the Commission’s decision, and Dillon appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | 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. The record shows that Dillon was an hourly employee who did not have to punch a time clock to go to lunch. It is therefore very important that Dillon’s supervisor know of his employees’ whereabouts to make sure they are paid according to the amount of time they worked. There was sufficient evidence for the MESC to decide that Dillon’s behavior of leaving work without notifying his supervisor constituted misconduct as contemplated under Mississippi law. Although Dillon claims that it would have been impossible to tell his employer that he would not return for the day, the record also indicates that he was just across the street from the place of his employment when he went to lunch and that he was with two other employees. The fact that Clark Construction’s rule was consistently applied shows that Dillon should have been aware of Clark Construction’s procedures and policies, and there is no question that the rule is related to the work environment and job performance. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
