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


<- Return to Search Results


Docket Number: 2010-CC-01325-COA

Court of Appeals: Opinion Link
Opinion Date: 03-27-2012
Opinion Author: Maxwell, J.
Holding: Affirmed

Additional Case Information: Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct
Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Griffis, P.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Carlton and Fair, JJ.
Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J.
Dissent Joined By : Russell, J.
Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment
Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES

Trial Court: Date of Trial Judgment: 07-27-2010
Appealed from: Hinds County Circuit Court
Judge: W. Swan Yerger
Disposition: CIRCUIT COURT AFFIRMED MDES’S DECISION TO DENY UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS
Case Number: 251-09-1055

  Party Name: Attorney Name:   Brief(s) Available:
Appellant: Milton Pilate




THOMAS KELVIN HUDSON



 
  • Appellant #1 Brief

  • 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 - Misconduct

    Summary of the Facts: Milton Pilate had been employed by TA Operating as a mechanic for approximately fifteen months before he was discharged. TA had already placed Pilate on ninety days’ probation for violating TA’s safety policies because Pilate had allowed a TA customer to use a blow torch to work on his personal vehicle in the company shop. Pilate had been warned that any other infraction within the ninety-day probationary period, no matter how minor, would result in his immediate discharge. According to TA, Pilate was not careful and again violated TA’s safety policy during his probationary period—this time by driving a company truck in an unsafe manner. The administrative law judge found Pilate had been discharged for operating a company vehicle in an unsafe manner. Thus, Pilate was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits. After reviewing the record, the MDES Board of Review affirmed the ALJ’s decision, adopting the ALJ’s findings of fact. The circuit court affirmed the MDES Board of Review’s decision. Pilate appeals.

    Summary of Opinion Analysis: Where an employee has been previously disciplined according to the employer’s policy and given a final warning, a subsequent violation constitutes misconduct. Pilate was so warned. 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. Pilate disputes TA’s claim that he was discharged for “misconduct.” He argues the actual reason for his termination was due to staff cuts or a reduction in work force. While TA did cut some hourly workers at the time of Pilate’s discharge, these cuts did not apply to commissioned employees, like Pilate. MDES’s decision and reasoning is supported by substantial evidence and was neither arbitrary nor depended on its will alone.


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