Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Barnes
| Docket Number: | 2002-CC-01067-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 08-19-2003 Opinion Author: Irving, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: McMillin, C.J., King and Southwick, P.JJ., Bridges, Thomas, Lee, Myers, Chandler and Griffis, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 05-31-2002 Appealed from: PEARL RIVER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Michael R. Eubanks Disposition: REVERSED COMMISSION’S DECISION AND Case Number: 2001-0111 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | Mississippi Employment Security Commission |
ALBERT B. WHITE |
||
| Appellee: | Robert E. Barnes | ROBERT E. BARNES (PRO SE) |
|
|
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: | While employed by Valspar Refinish, Inc. as a pot washer, Robert Barnes was discharged for violating Valspar’s safety rules. Barnes filed a claim for unemployment benefits which was approved. Valspar appealed, and the appeals’ referee reversed. Barnes appealed to the Board of Review of the MESC which affirmed the referee’s decision. Barnes appealed to circuit court which reversed. The MESC appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The MESC argues that there is substantial evidence to support the findings of the Board of Review that Barnes violated Valspar's guidelines and that Barnes's actions constitute misconduct. 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. Barnes’s actions do constitute misconduct within the meaning of the law. This was not a case of an isolated act of negligence. As to the smoking incident, the evidence was disputed with Barnes’s word against that of his employer, Valspar. In addition, the smoking incident was not Barnes's first safety violation, and this violation, along with Barnes’s previous safety violations, clearly evinces misconduct of an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of Barnes's duties and obligations to his employer. Within the seven months before his termination, Barnes had four separate safety violations, two of which resulted in suspensions. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
