Broome v. Miss. Emp. Sec. Comm'n, et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CC-00522-COA Linked Case(s): 2004-CT-00522-SCT2004-CT-00522-SCT2004-CT-00522-SCT2004-CC-00522-COA |
|
| Oral Argument: | 01-12-2005 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-14-2005 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., BRIDGES, P.J., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES AND ISHEE, JJ. Dissenting Author : MYERS, J. Concurs in Result Only: LEE, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AFFIRMED. Case Number: 2003-21 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOE BROOME |
QUENTIN P. MCCOLGIN |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE | W. THOMAS MCCRANEY, ALBERT B. WHITE |
|
|
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: | Joe Broome was discharged from Mississippi College and denied unemployment benefits on the grounds of misconduct. Broome appealed, and the appeals referee determined that the benefits had been properly denied. Broome then appealed to the Board of Review, which adopted the findings of fact and opinion of the referee and affirmed. The circuit court upheld the Board's denial of benefits. Broome 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 employer bears the burden of proof of showing misconduct by clear and convincing evidence. Broome’s employer gives two reasons for discharging Broome and for denying benefits on the basis of misconduct. The first was that Broome did not personally give notice of his absence, which Broome’s supervisors claimed was required by the department’s rule. The second reason, and the rationale upon which the appeals referee relied, was that he falsified the reason for his absences on two dates. An employee's violation of an employer's policy does not automatically constitute misconduct. Rather, an employee's conduct must manifest willful and wanton disregard of the employer's interest. Broome could not have been found guilty of misconduct for violating his employer’s policy of personally making the call when the evidence shows that it was impossible for Broome to comply with this directive (he was in jail at the time). Mississippi College’s attendance policy does not impose a duty for an employee to disclose, in advance, the reasons for an employee’s absence. Similarly, the employer’s suspension policy does not impose a disclosure duty. Broome made the effort through his girlfriend to call his supervisor and tell him that he would be absent. Broome was not actually dishonest to his supervisor, nor did he instruct his girlfriend to lie. Although he did not want his employer to know he was incarcerated, he did not instruct his girlfriend to cover up this fact. Broome’s embarrassment about being imprisoned and his failure to explicitly tell his girlfriend to tell the truth does not constitute misconduct that demonstrates a willful or wanton disregard for his employer’s interests. Therefore, the judgment of the MESC is reversed and Broome’s application for unemployment benefits is granted. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
