Austin v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec.
| Docket Number: | 2007-CC-00200-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-11-2008 Opinion Author: CHANDLER, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) Judge(s) Concurring: KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, 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: 01-03-2007 Appealed from: TUNICA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Al Smith Disposition: AFFIRMED THE DECISION OF THE BOARD OF REVIEW DENYING BENEFITS Case Number: 2006-0215 |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | PATRICIA AUSTIN |
PATRICIA AUSTIN (PRO SE) |
|
|
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND FITZGERALD CASINO | 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 - Misconduct - Hearsay - M.R.E. 801(d)(2) |
| Summary of the Facts: | While working as a security officer for Fitzgerald Casino, Patricia Austin was terminated for misconduct. She filed a claim with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security. The claims examiner denied Austin’s claim, and Austin appealed that decision. The appeals officer found that Austin’s actions constituted misconduct, and she was properly denied benefits. Austin appealed the decision to the Board of Review which affirmed the decision. Austin appealed to circuit court which also affirmed. Austin appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Austin argues that there was not substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision. Misconduct is defined as 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. Here, there were facts to support the denial of benefits to Austin. A representative of Fitzgerald informed the appeals officer that Austin left her post unattended twice in one day. This was a violation of Fitzgerald’s company policy, which required a security officer to be at the post at all times. Austin did not deny the allegations. She admitted she left her post and did not attempt to radio for someone to cover for her while she went to the restroom. Austin also admitted that she was aware of the casino’s policy that required her to radio another security officer if she needed to leave her post. In addition, she had been warned on a prior occasion about violating this policy. Thus, there was substantial evidence to support the Board’s decision. Austin also argues that the representative’s testimony as to Fitzgerald’s company policy and as to why Austin was reprimanded and later dismissed was uncorroborated hearsay. Under M.R.E. 801(d)(2), Austin’s own statements admitting the misconduct were not hearsay, and they were sufficient substantial evidence in support of the circuit court’s decision to affirm the denial of her employment benefits. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
