Broome v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2004-CT-00522-SCT Linked Case(s): 2004-CC-00522-COA ; 2004-CT-00522-SCT ; 2004-CT-00522-SCT ; 2004-CC-00522-COA |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-19-2006 Opinion Author: Smith, C.J. Holding: The Judgment of the Court of Appeals is Reversed and the Judgment of the Circuit Court of Hinds County is Reinstated and Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct Judge(s) Concurring: Waller and Cobb, P.JJ., Easley, Carlson, Dickinson and Randolph, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Diaz, J. Concurs in Result Only: Graves, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 02-06-2004 Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court Judge: Bobby DeLaughter Disposition: Adopted MESC's decision to deny Appellant unemployment benefits Case Number: 2003-21 |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found that there was substantial evidence in the record to support the MESC’s decision denying Broome unemployment benefits, and reversed the judgment of the Court of Appeals. See original COA opinion at http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/OPINIONS/CO27115.PDF | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | |||
| Appellant: | JOE BROOME |
QUENTIN P. McCOLGIN |
||
| Appellee: | MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND MISSISSIPPI COLLEGE | W. THOMAS McCRANEY, III, 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 - Misconduct |
| Summary of the Facts: | Joe Broome, a former employee of Mississippi College, sought unemployment benefits after his employment was terminated due to misconduct. Broome appealed to the Mississippi Employment Security Commission after he was denied benefits due to his alleged misconduct. The MESC referee denied Broome unemployment benefits, and Broome then appealed to the Board of Review, which affirmed the denial. Broome appealed to circuit court which adopted the MESC’s decision. Broome appealed to the Court of Appeals, which reversed and rendered the MESC’s decision. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | MESC argues that the board of review’s decision to deny Broome benefits on the grounds of misconduct was supported by substantial evidence. 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. During his tenure at Mississippi College, Broome had a record that reflected a pattern of excessive absenteeism. Mississippi College had a policy requiring any employee missing work to notify their supervisor. Occasionally Broome complied with this policy and notified his supervisor of his absences, and at other times Broome ignored this policy. Further, Broome’s first unsatisfactory review provided that if Broome was unable to be present for work, he was required to notify his supervisor as to the reason for his absence. A claimant’s failure to notify the employer of the reason for absences can constitute misconduct, if there is a policy that requires such notice. The referee determined Broome was not entitled to benefits based on the untruthful reasons his girlfriend supplied to his employer while he was incarcerated. The record is replete with instances of Broome’s absences, misconduct, and the warnings he received from Mississippi College. Broome’s deception, repeated absences, and continued misbehavior were in substantial disregard of Mississippi College’s interests. Broome also substantially disregarded the duties and obligations he owed to Mississippi College. The Court of Appeals improperly reweighed the evidence and substituted its judgement for that of the MESC in this matter. The Court of Appeals opinion is almost entirely void of any consideration of whether substantial evidence was present in support of the MESC’s ruling. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
