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


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2009-CC-01049-COA
Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 08-10-2010
Opinion Author: Griffis, J.
Holding: The judgment of the Humphreys County Circuit Court is reversed, and a judgment is rendered to reinstate the decision of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security.
Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Voluntary resignation
Judge(s) Concurring: King, C.J., Lee and Myers, P.JJ., Irving, Barnes, Ishee, Roberts and Maxwell, JJ.
Concurs in Result Only: Carlton, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 03-10-2009
Appealed from: Humphreys County Circuit Court
Judge: Jannie M. Lewis
Disposition: REVERSED THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY BOARD OF REVIEW’S DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT COMPENSATION
Case Number: 08-0186
  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Mississippi Department of Employment Security




 LEANNE FRANKLIN BRADY



  
  • Appellant #1 Brief
    		•
    Appellee: Chandra Shields 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 - Voluntary resignation
    Summary of the Facts: Chandra Shields was employed by Lowes Home Centers, Inc. Shields filed her initial claim for unemployment insurance benefits while she was on maternity leave. While Shields’s claim was still under review with MDES, Shields’s child was born prematurely. Lowes classified her maternity leave as time off under the Family Medical Leave Act, and it was agreed that her maternity leave would end on a certain date. Shields’s child had complications after birth that required surgery. Shields notified Lowes that she could not return to work as planned because she had to stay home with her child. Lowes granted Shields a leave of absence that was classified as personal leave. When Shields failed to return to work after her leave was scheduled to end, Lowes found that Shields had abandoned her employment and terminated her employment. The claims examiner found that Shields did not return to work due to her lack of child care. Because this reason did not constitute good cause for voluntarily leaving her employment, the claims examiner denied Shields’s request for unemployment benefits. Shields appealed, and the administrative law judge concluded that Shields had failed to show good cause for abandoning her employment. The Board of Review affirmed the ALJ’s decision. On appeal to circuit court, the court held that there was no substantial evidence to support the Board of Review’s finding that Shields had abandoned her employment and reversed the Board of Review’s denial of unemployment benefits. MDES appeals.
    Summary of Opinion Analysis: MDES argues that the circuit court abused its discretion and substituted its own judgment for that of the Board of Review. The question of whether Shields quit voluntarily or was discharged from her employment is a question of fact to be determined by the Board of Review. The circuit court’s ruling centered on Shields’s assertion that she had maintained communications with the human resource department while she was on leave. Shields testified that she maintained contact with the human resources department while she was on leave. Shields also testified that she had requested a second leave of absence after her maternity leave because of her sick child. Further, Shields testified that she was aware her second leave of absence ended on March 1st. Shields did nothing to request a third leave of absence. Shields never attempted to return to work. Even after she called and was informed of her termination, Shields never contacted her supervisors who testified that Lowes was in the middle of a massive hiring phase and that there was ample work for Shields had she returned to work. The record in this case shows that there was conflicting evidence from the parties regarding the issue of whether Shields quit her job voluntarily. It was the Board of Review’s task to weigh the conflicting evidence on this issue of fact. The Board of Review’s ruling that Shields had quit her employment with Lowes voluntarily is supported by substantial evidence in the record.


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