Hollingsworth v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec.
| Docket Number: | 2006-CC-01793-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-04-2008 Opinion Author: GRIFFIS, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Accepting suitable work without good cause - Section 71-5-513(A)(3)(a) - Repayment of benefits Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 09-11-2006 Appealed from: Jackson County Circuit Court Judge: Robert P. Krebs Disposition: AFFIRMED DECISION OF BOARD OF REVIEW DENYING BENEFITS. Case Number: 2006-00,158(1) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | AMY R. HOLLINGSWORTH |
AMY R. HOLLINGSWORTH (PRO SE),
SCOTT OLIVER NELSON |
|
|
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY | ALBERT B. WHITE, LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY | ||
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 - Accepting suitable work without good cause - Section 71-5-513(A)(3)(a) - Repayment of benefits |
| Summary of the Facts: | Amy Hollingsworth was an employee of The Eyeglass Factory in Pascagoula. After Hurricane Katrina devastated the Mississippi Gulf Coast, Dr. Brian Spencer, one of the owners, contacted Hollingsworth and asked her to return to work so that she could assist customers. Hollingsworth initially told Dr. Spencer that she could not return until the schools were going to open, because she did not have anyone to watch her three children. Hollingsworth testified that she eventually agreed to return to work because Dr. Spencer said she could bring her children to work. Also, Hollingsworth thought her hours would remain 8:00 a.m. to 2:00 p.m. When Dr. Spencer informed her that she would have to work a full day, Hollingsworth told Dr. Spencer that she would not return to work because she could not work those hours with her children present. The Mississippi Department of Employment Security denied her unemployment benefits. She appealed to circuit court which affirmed. She appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Accepting suitable work without good cause Hollingsworth argues that the board of review’s finding that she failed to accept suitable work without good cause is not supported by substantial evidence. When determining if work is suitable, section 71-5-513(A)(3)(a) considers the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of employment and the distance of available work from his residence. Hollingsworth argues that she was not offered suitable work because the offer required a different working environment than her pre-hurricane job, different duties, and different hours. Hollingsworth asserted her unsafe work environment theory for the first time on appeal to the board of review. She sent the board of review printouts from the Environmental Protection Agency’s Hurricane Katrina website. These printouts are the only evidence in the record that mention that a post-hurricane environment can be hazardous. If hearsay, even if not corroborated in the traditional sense, is highly probative because it has strong indicia of reliability, it can at least in many situations be substantial evidence. The evidence presented by Hollingsworth does not exhibit any indicia of reliability because there is no way to determine if the documents presented are authentic or even applicable. Hollingsworth’s employer needed her to return to work and agreed to accommodate her by letting her bring her children to work. He also said that she would still be assisting customers and that she would have to help with clean up after the hurricane. Furthermore, he only increased her work day by approximately two to three hours. Thus, her employer’s new offer of employment was not unsuitable. Issue 2: Repayment of benefits Hollingsworth argues that the order requiring her to repay the benefits that she received is not in accordance with Mississippi law. She argues that the MDES cannot pursue collection measures against her. Instead, it may only offset future payments she may receive. The commission cannot actively seek repayment of benefits unless it finds a person received benefits at a time when he was ineligible by reason of a nondisclosure or a misrepresentation of a material fact made by that person or another, irrespective of fraudulent intent or knowledge of the omitted or misrepresented fact. MDES paid benefits to Hollingsworth. She was ineligible to receive benefits at that time because she had refused suitable work. MDES paid these benefits because Hollingsworth did not tell MDES that she had refused suitable work, which was a material fact. MDES did not acquire this knowledge until The Eyeglass Factory informed the department that they had offered Hollingsworth a new job. This omission or misrepresentation is directly attributable to Hollingsworth. Thus, MDES may actively pursue collection measures against Hollingsworth. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
