Mask v. Miss. Dep'tof Employment Sec.
| Docket Number: | 2010-CC-01766-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 02-14-2012 Opinion Author: Roberts, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Barnes, Ishee, Carlton, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Fair, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 10-06-2009 Appealed from: Monroe County Circuit Court Judge: Jim S. Pounds Disposition: AFFIRMED BOARD OF REVIEW’S DENIAL OF UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS Case Number: CV2009-185-PM |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Susan Mask |
CARTER DOBBS JR. |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Employment Security | 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 - Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) |
| Summary of the Facts: | After Susan Mask was terminated from her position as a seamstress at Townhouse Home Furnishings, she filed a request for unemployment benefits. The Mississippi Department of Employment Security denied her claim, and Mask appealed to circuit court which affirmed the denial of her benefits. Mask appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Mask argues that the circuit court erred in finding she committed misconduct pursuant to section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) because the finding was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. She argues that her errors were not misconduct because no substantial evidence was presented to show wrongful intent or evil design and that there was not an employer policy regarding the number of warnings or types of warnings an employee must receive before termination. 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. Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not considered ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute. Here, the circuit court’s judgment was not arbitrary or capricious and was based on substantial evidence. It is undisputed that Mask was employed by Townhouse for over two years and had demonstrated an ability to properly do the job assigned to her yet failed to perform the job up to her ability despite repeat warnings. There was evidence presented that Mask had received numerous warnings for incorrectly sewing pieces of fabric onto pieces of furniture, yet she continued making the same errors. Mask never expressed any concern and had, in fact, correctly sewed the pieces many times. There was also testimony that Mask’s errors would cause Townhouse to shut down other parts of the factory, move employees to dismantle the improperly made furniture covers, throw away the covers, re-cut new pieces, and sew them on properly which cost Townhouse time, money, and resources. Mask’s repeated errors, taken as a whole, demonstrate a repeated negligent disregard of Townhouse’s interest. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
