Henry v. Miss. Dep't. of Employment Sec.


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2006-CC-01129-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 07-31-2007
Opinion Author: CARLTON, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Judicial impropriety - Misconduct
Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE AND ROBERTS, JJ.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 05-26-2006
Appealed from: George County Circuit Court
Judge: Robert P. Krebs
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE MDES BOARD OF REVIEW TO DENY BENEFITS
Case Number: 2005-0087

  Party Name: Attorney Name:  
Appellant: MARY E. HENRY




MARY E. HENRY (PRO SE)



 

Appellee: MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY 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 - Judicial impropriety - Misconduct

Summary of the Facts: Henry’s employment as an assistant food service manager at the George County Regional Correctional Facility was terminated. Henry filed for unemployment benefits. The claims examiner concluded that Henry was disqualified from receiving benefits due to her employment terminating because of misconduct. Henry appealed, and the appeals referee concluded that Henry’s employment was terminated because of misconduct. The Board adopted and affirmed the factual findings and the opinion of the referee. Henry appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Henry appeals.

Summary of Opinion Analysis: Issue 1: Judicial impropriety Henry argues that the circuit court judge must have initiated ex parte communication with a representative of the employer, because the circuit court’s order states that the court “having considered the matter, and having been further fully advised in the premises, finds that Plaintiff’s appeal is hereby denied.” However, the statement of the trial court, that it had “been further fully advised in the premises,” indicates that the circuit judge fully read and processed through the pleadings of the parties in addition to the record of the proceedings which had previously taken place. Henry also argues that any court should diligently address an allegation against a person that is accused of committing perjury. Henry filed her appeal to the circuit court alleging that a witness committed perjury in the Department’s hearing. Her filing was not in the form of an affidavit swearing that a crime had been committed. Thus, the circuit court properly concluded that the criminal allegations were beyond the scope of Henry’s appeal. Issue 2: Misconduct Henry argues that there was not substantial evidence presented to support the decision of the Board. 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 first reason listed for Henry’s employment termination was that food and other items were taken out of the kitchen by inmates during Henry’s shift. The second disciplinary item was that several unauthorized programs were found on the computer in the kitchen office. The third disciplinary item was that Henry allowed an inmate into the kitchen who was not authorized to be in that location at that time. The fourth disciplinary item was that unauthorized items were found on Henry’s person while entering the correctional facility. When viewed together, the totality of the incidents suffice as misconduct.


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