Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, et al. v. Nordstrom


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2002-CC-01522-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 11-04-2003
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct
Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Irving, Myers and Chandler, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 08-02-2002
Appealed from: Warren County Circuit Court
Judge: Frank G. Vollor
Disposition: TRIAL COURT OVERTURNED THE DECISION OF THE MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND GRANTED BENEFITS TO APPELLEE.
Case Number: 02,0043-CI

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: Mississippi Employment Security Commission and Tyson Farms, Inc.




AMY C. FELDER LEWIS W. BELL WALTER JAMES BRAND



 

Appellee: Andrew K. Nordstrom FRANK J. CAMPBELL  

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: Believing he was discharged, Andrew Nordstrom never returned to work at Tyson Farms. He filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The claims examiner held that Nordstrom was entitled to benefits. The appeals referee reversed the decision which the board of review affirmed. Nordstrom appealed to circuit court which reversed. Tyson appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Tyson argues that Nordstrom's assertion that he believed he was terminated is unsupported by the record, because Nordstrom's belief is based on information given to him by the plant secretary who did not have the authority to fire Nordstrom. However, the record shows that Nordstrom's belief that he was terminated was based on the wording of a Tyson document and that the plant secretary thereafter reinforced what Nordstrom already believed. Also, when Nordstrom told his immediate supervisor that he was terminated, the supervisor’s only response was to tell Nordstrom that a medical excuse "might" clear up the problem. Tyson's only witness was the plant personnel manager who had no first hand knowledge of the events and was not employed by Tyson when the incident took place. Under these circumstances, a reasonable person would believe they were terminated. Therefore, Nordstrom's subsequent failure to report to work cannot be classified as misconduct.


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