Magee v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-01313-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-17-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Willful misconduct - Due process - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 07-06-2010 Appealed from: Rankin County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Case Number: 2009-168-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Jimmy Magee |
LYDIA ROBERTA BLACKMON |
|
|
| 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 - Willful misconduct - Due process - M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6) |
| Summary of the Facts: | Jimmy Magee was discharged by Central Transport, Incorporated, for exceeding the allowed number of “chargeable” accidents in a one-year period. Magee applied for unemployment benefits, but his claim was denied. He appealed this denial to an administrative law judge who affirmed the MDES decision. Magee then appealed to the MDES Board of Review which also affirmed. Magee appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Magee appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Willful misconduct Magee argues that the Board’s decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. He provides four reasons to support his contention: the alleged accidents were not thoroughly investigated; there was insufficient evidence of CTI’s accident policy and insufficient evidence to show Magee was aware of the policy; there was insufficient notice that Magee’s conduct was prohibited and could lead to termination; and Magee did not engage in willful misconduct. Misconduct in unemployment-benefits cases has been defined by to mean 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. In the instant case, there is conflicting testimony concerning whether CTI investigated the accidents; however, that was a factual question for the Board to decide. When proving an employee violated an employer’s policy sufficient to disqualify him or her from receiving unemployment benefits, the employer must prove both the existence of the policy and the violation thereof by the employee. The Board, adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact and opinion, found that CTI did prove the existence of a safety and accident policy and that Magee was aware of the policy. At the hearing before the ALJ, CTI entered a copy of the accident policy into evidence and also presented evidence that Magee received a written copy of the policy when he started work at CTI. CTI also testified that the policy was discussed at CTI meetings and that a poster containing the policy was posted at the facility where Magee worked. Thus, the Board’s decision was based on substantial evidence and was not arbitrary and capricious. CTI presented evidence at the hearing that Magee was aware his accidents were against CTI’s policy. Specifically, CTI entered an Incident Action Report, signed by Magee. According to Magee, there is nothing in the record to demonstrate that the accidents were more than isolated instances of ordinary negligence or were due to any intentional neglect on his part. At Magee’s hearing, both CTI and Magee presented evidence about the nature of the accidents. The ALJ questioned each party and ultimately found that Magee’s involvement in four accidents within six months showed carelessness and negligence sufficient to warrant a finding of misconduct. Thus, this issue is without merit. Issue 2: Due process Magee argues that the Board’s decision violated his due-process right because CTI had failed to adequately investigate the accidents in which the appellant was allegedly involved; failed to show that there was an established company policy regarding accidents; and failed to adequately notify the appellant of the consequences of his actions. Magee failed to cite to any relevant authority to support his contention as required by M.R.A.P. 28(a)(6). |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
