SkyHawke Technologies, LLC v. Miss. Dep't of Employment Sec., et al.
| Docket Number: | 2011-CC-00595-COA Linked Case(s): 2011-CC-00595-COA2011-CT-00595-SCT2011-CT-00595-SCT |
|
| Oral Argument: | 03-14-2012 | |
* This video is best viewed in the most current version of Google Chrome, Internet Explorer with Windows Media Player plug-in, or Safari (Mac Users). |
||
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 06-19-2012 Opinion Author: Fair, J. Holding: Affirmed |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) - Sexually offensive remarks Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Barnes, Ishee, Roberts, Maxwell and Russell, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Griffis, P.J. Dissenting Author : Irving, P.J., and Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 04-13-2011 Appealed from: Madison County Circuit Court Judge: William E. Chapman, III Disposition: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS GRANTED Case Number: CI-2010-0459-C |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | SkyHawke Technologies, LLC |
DENNIS L. HORN
SHIRLEY PAYNE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Employment Security and Shawn Gillis | ALBERT B. WHITE LEANNE F. 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) - Sexually offensive remarks |
| Summary of the Facts: | Shawn Gillis was employed by SkyHawke Technologies, LLC for six years as a sales representative. While at the office, his co-worker called him an obscene name. Gillis responded that evening by sending her several vulgar text messages and leaving her crude voicemails. When she did not respond, Gillis said “game on.” The next day or so, Gillis approached the co-worker at her cubicle brandishing his phone and asking if she had received his messages. She reported this behavior to SkyHawke claiming she felt scared and uncomfortable. Two days later, Gillis was terminated for sending text messages “of a sexual nature” to the co-worker. Gillis was initially denied unemployment benefits because he was terminated for sexual harassment. He appealed the MDES Examiner’s decision to an administrative law judge who reversed the examiner’s denial of benefits. SkyHawke then appealed to the MDES Board of Review, which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Next, SkyHawke appealed to circuit court, which also affirmed the award of benefits. SkyHawke appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Issue 1: Standard of review SkyHawke argues that the circuit court applied an incorrect standard of review by stating: “The court having reviewed the entire record does not find any evidence of fraud and further finds the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts are supported by the evidence.” The circuit court, following section 71-5-531, ruled that it did “not find any evidence of fraud” and that “the facts [were] supported by evidence.” The court did not act improperly by reviewing the record for fraud and did not impermissibly require that SkyHawke prove fraud to succeed in its appeal. Issue 2: Employee handbook SkyHawke argues that had the employee handbook been admitted into evidence, the ALJ would have found that Gillis was terminated for sexual harassment, justifying a denial of unemployment benefits. While the rules of evidence are relaxed in administrative settings, ideas of fundamental fairness should still prevail. M.R.E. 103(a) provides that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected. There is no evidence of SkyHawke providing a copy of the proposed manual or portions thereof. In addition, SkyHawke has pointed to no substantial right that has been affected by this exclusion. Issue 3: Misconduct Section 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) provides that individuals are disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if discharged for misconduct connected with work. 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. To be guilty of misconduct for violating a rule (such as a policy against the use of foul language), it must be shown that the employee knew or should have known of the rule, that the rule was reasonably related to the job, and that the rule is fairly and consistently enforced. SkyHawke argues that Gillis’s sexually offensive remarks should be characterized as misconduct. Gillis testified that he was unaware of any policy against the use of foul language, and foul language was often used by many employees without repercussion. Further, the record shows that this policy was not consistently enforced, as it was the co-worker’s use of an obscenity that precipitated Gillis’s remarks. It was not an abuse of discretion for the Board to conclude that Gillis’s conduct was an isolated incident of poor judgment and not misconduct. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
