Alabama Department of Industrial Relations v. Anthony Williams

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

REL: 10/19/2012 Notice: T h i s o p i n i o n i s s u b j e c t t o f o r m a l r e v i s i o n b e f o r e p u b l i c a t i o n i n t h e advance s h e e t s o f Southern R e p o r t e r . R e a d e r s a r e r e q u e s t e d t o n o t i f y t h e R e p o r t e r o f D e c i s i o n s , Alabama A p p e l l a t e C o u r t s , 300 D e x t e r A v e n u e , M o n t g o m e r y , Alabama 36104-3741 ((334) 2 2 9 - 0 6 4 9 ) , o f a n y t y p o g r a p h i c a l o r o t h e r e r r o r s , i n o r d e r t h a t c o r r e c t i o n s may b e made b e f o r e t h e o p i n i o n i s p r i n t e d i n Southern R e p o r t e r . ALABAMA COURT OF CIVIL APPEALS OCTOBER TERM, 2012-2013 2110864 Alabama Department o f I n d u s t r i a l Relations v. Anthony W i l l i a m s Appeal from J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t (CV-11-1905) Court MOORE, J u d g e . The Alabama Department Department") appeals Court awarding benefits. of Industrial R e l a t i o n s ("the f r o m a judgment o f t h e J e f f e r s o n C i r c u i t Anthony We r e v e r s e . Williams unemployment-compensation 2110864 On July 17, 2011, Williams filed a claim for unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s w i t h the Department; t h a t claim was denied. following an Williams ore tenus administrative hearing that was Williams compensation Williams not decision, the The to receive hearing [from concluding unemployment- officer receiving found Williams hearing sought officer to leave the for that to appeal State the Board of decision a trial Williams The was the the Williams's a p p l i c a t i o n for leave Jefferson Circuit de novo. of for Appeals P u r s u a n t t o § 25-4-95, A l a . Code 1975, appealed to the 25-4- 1975] Department, which denied appeal. that unemployment- compensation b e n e f i t s ] under the p r o v i s i o n s of S e c t i o n 78(3) [ a . , A l a . Code and, Department's issued a decision entitled "disqualified that hearing, officer benefits. was appealed Court ("the Department f i l e d eligible to Williams trial to then court") an a n s w e r , d e n y i n g receive unemployment- compensation b e n e f i t s . Following a bench trial, the trial judgment i n f a v o r of W i l l i a m s , s e t t i n g f a c t and conclusions of law. court entered f o r t h i t s f i n d i n g s of That judgment s t a t e d : 2 a 2110864 "Under t h e a u t h o r i t y o f A l a b a m a Code (1975) § 25-4-95, the Court heard this unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n a p p e a l a t a b e n c h t r i a l on M a r c h 19, 2012. T h i s c a s e comes b e f o r e t h e C o u r t as t h e r e s u l t of an a p p e a l f i l e d by t h e f o r m e r W a l - M a r t e m p l o y e e , Anthony W i l l i a m s , from a d e c i s i o n of the S t a t e of Alabama Board of A p p e a l s f o r the Department of I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s m a i l e d on A u g u s t 23, 2011, Case Number 17525-AT-11. "The C o u r t has r e v i e w e d t h e p l e a d i n g s , t h e e x h i b i t s w h i c h were i n t r o d u c e d a t t r i a l , and has considered and weighed the testimony of the w i t n e s s e s . The C o u r t has a l s o r e v i e w e d t h e f i l e , a l o n g w i t h a DVD, w h i c h has b e e n f i l e d w i t h t h e Court by the S t a t e of Alabama Department of Industrial Relations. "The f a c t s a r e t h a t A n t h o n y W i l l i a m s w o r k e d f o r W a l - M a r t f r o m May 12, 2009, u n t i l he was d i s c h a r g e d on J u l y 12, 2011. He was h i r e d as an a s s o c i a t e i n t h e D e l i where he d i d f o o d p r e p a r a t i o n and s e r v e d c u s t o m e r s . T h e r e i s an e m p l o y e e s ' handbook o r a company p o l i c y r e g a r d i n g g r o u n d s f o r d i s c h a r g e , b u t i t a p p e a r s t h a t W i l l i a m s was an e m p l o y e e a t w i l l . "The f a c t s a b o u t what h a p p e n e d a r e r e a l l y n o t i n d i s p u t e . W i l l i a m s s i g n e d an a d m i s s i o n on t h e d a t e o f h i s d i s c h a r g e , i n w h i c h he a d m i t t e d t o d o i n g t h e a c t s w h i c h r e s u l t e d i n h i s d i s c h a r g e . A t t r i a l he a t t e m p t e d t o d i s c l a i m t h e a d m i s s i o n s and s a i d t h a t he made t h e s t a t e m e n t o n l y b e c a u s e he t h o u g h t WalMart would g i v e him another chance. The Court b e l i e v e s t h a t h i s a d m i s s i o n s [were] t r u e . "On J u l y 12, 2011, Mr. W i l l i a m s p u t a s m a l l amount o f p o t a t o s a l a d and a s m a l l amount o f c o l e s l a w i n t o one o r two c o n t a i n e r s . He t h e n p u t t h e p a c k a g e ( s ) on a s c a l e and p r i n t e d o u t l a b e l s w h i c h showed t h e w e i g h t , t h e p r i c e p e r p o u n d and t h e t o t a l p r i c e f o r t h e f o o d t h a t was i n t h e c o n t a i n e r s . The p o t a t o s a l a d w e i g h e d .17 o f a p o u n d a t $2.28 p e r 3 2110864 p o u n d f o r a t o t a l p r i c e o f $.39. The p r i c e f o r t h e c o l e s l a w was $.23. W i l l i a m s t h e n went b a c k t o t h e c o u n t e r and a d d e d more p o t a t o s a l a d and c o l e s l a w t o t h e c o n t a i n e r s . He t h e n p l a c e d t h e c o n t a i n e r s i n t h e c o o l e r and when he was r e a d y t o go t o l u n c h , he h a d a n o t h e r e m p l o y e e h a n d h i m t h e c o n t a i n e r s . He went t o t h e e l e c t r o n i c s d e p a r t m e n t where he c h e c k e d o u t , p a y i n g t h e amount w h i c h was on t h e p r i n t e d l a b e l , a t o t a l o f $.68. He t h e n went t o e a t h i s l u n c h . The t e s t i m o n y was t h a t i f he h a d w e i g h e d e a c h full c o n t a i n e r a f t e r he added t h e a d d i t i o n a l f o o d , t h e y w o u l d have b e e n p r i c e d a t $1.70 e a c h . Wal-Mart's r e c o r d s show t h a t t h e p r i c e s h o u l d have b e e n $3.51, n o t t h e $.6[8] he p a i d . The i n c i d e n t came t o management's attention because the amount of W i l l i a m s [ ' s ] p u r c h a s e was e x t r a o r d i n a r i l y l o w . T h e r e were v i d e o r e c o r d i n g s w h i c h support Wal-Mart's charges. [ 1 ] " F o r t h i s he was f i r e d f r o m h i s j o b . The r e a s o n f o r h i s d i s c h a r g e was 'gross m i s c o n d u c t - i n t e g r i t y i s s u e . ' W a l - M a r t s a y s t h a t s i n c e i t was a m a t t e r o f ' i n t e g r i t y , ' W i l l i a m s i s g u i l t y of such misconduct as t o be d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n benefits. "In the Wal-Mart's ' C o a c h i n g f o r Improvement P o l i c y , ' i t i s s t a t e d , ' I f you r e c e i v e a c o a c h i n g and your job performance or conduct remains u n a c c e p t a b l e we w i l l t e r m i n a t e y o u r employment.' As f a r as t h e e v i d e n c e shows, W i l l i a m s r e c e i v e d no coaching. "The P o l i c y f u r t h e r s t a t e s , ' A d d i t i o n a l l y i f y o u r u n a c c e p t a b l e c o n d u c t i s f o u n d t o be s e r i o u s , t h i s may r e s u l t i n y o u r i m m e d i a t e t e r m i n a t i o n ' I t a p p e a r s f r o m t h e r e c o r d t h a t t h e $.68 f i g u r e i s b a s e d on t h e i t e m s when t a x i s added. The r e c o r d r e f l e c t s t h a t t h e a c t u a l c o s t o f t h e p o t a t o s a l a d and c o l e s l a w s h o u l d have b e e n $1.71 and $1.80, r e s p e c t i v e l y . 1 4 2110864 A p p a r e n t l y , Wal-Mart thought t h a t t a k i n g a s m a l l amount o f f o o d w i t h o u t p a y i n g t h e f u l l p r i c e was ' s e r i o u s ' enough t o f i r e Mr. W i l l i a m s . They had t h e r i g h t u n d e r A l a b a m a employment l a w t o t e r m i n a t e h i s employment f o r a good r e a s o n , a b a d r e a s o n o r no r e a s o n a t a l l . S a l t e r v. A l f a , 561 So. 2d 1050 ( A l a . 1990) . "'By now, the r u l e i s w e l l s e t t l e d i n A l a b a m a t h a t an e m p l o y e e c o n t r a c t a t w i l l may be t e r m i n a t e d by e i t h e r p a r t y w i t h o r w i t h o u t c a u s e o r j u s t i f i c a t i o n . See, e.g., Weeks v. Opp C o t t o n M i l l s , I n c . , 459 So. 2d 814 ( A l a . 1 9 8 4 ) ; H i n r i c h s v. T r a n q u i l a i r e H o s p i t a l , 352 So. 2d 1130 ( A l a . 1977) . T h i s means a good r e a s o n , a wrong r e a s o n , o r no reason. H i n r i c h s , supra.' " A f t e r h i s d i s c h a r g e , Mr. W i l l i a m s a p p l i e d f o r unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s which Wal-Mart d e n i e d on t h e b a s i s o f e m p l o y e e m i s c o n d u c t . He i s s t i l l u n e m p l o y e d and l o o k i n g f o r w o r k . W a l - M a r t c o n t e n d s t h a t Mr. W i l l i a m s i s d i s q u a l i f i e d u n d e r Ala. Code ( 1 9 7 5 ) , § 2 5 - 4 - 7 8 ( 3 ) [ b . ] , w h i c h p r o v i d e s t h a t a c l a i m a n t i s d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r b e n e f i t s i f he was d i s c h a r g e d f o r r e p e a t e d m i s c o n d u c t c o m m i t t e d i n c o n n e c t i o n w i t h work a f t e r p r e v i o u s w a r n i n g s . "The A l a b a m a Unemployment C o m p e n s a t i o n s t a t u t e p r o v i d e s b e n e f i t s i n the nature of i n s u r a n c e f o r the w o r k e r whose unemployment was n o t b r o u g h t a b o u t by h i s own v o l u n t a r y a c t i o n s . Under t h e s t a t u t e , A l a . Code (1975), § 25-4-78(3)[b.], any potential b e n e f i t s w i l l be d i s q u a l i f i e d by ' m i s c o n d u c t ' on t h e p a r t of the worker, i n c l u d i n g 'a d i s r e g a r d o f s t a n d a r d s o f b e h a v i o r w h i c h t h e e m p l o y e r has the right to expect of h i s employee' or r e c u r r e n t negligence that 'show[s] an intentional and s u b s t a n t i a l d i s r e g a r d of the employers' i n t e r e s t or o f t h e e m p l o y e e ' s d u t i e s and o b l i g a t i o n s t o t h e employer,' Batain v. State Dep't of Indus. 5 2110864 Relations, 1992). 606 "The w o r k e r 'for a c t u a l or connection with warning to the So. 2d 140, 141 (Ala. Civ. App. i s d i s q u a l i f i e d i f he i s d i s c h a r g e d t h r e a t e n e d misconduct committed i n h i s work ... r e p e a t e d a f t e r p r e v i o u s individual.' "Here t h e r e was no e v i d e n c e p r e s e n t e d t h a t W i l l i a m s h a d b e e n w a r n e d o f any s u c h m i s c o n d u c t o r t h a t h i s c o n d u c t was ' r e p e a t e d . ' " ' I t appears from t h e use of the s p e c i f i c word "repeated" that the Legislature intended that the "misconduct," which t o t a l l y d i s q u a l i f i e s an e m p l o y e e must have p r e v i o u s l y o c c u r r e d and t h e n have b e e n " r e p e a t e d " a f t e r a w a r n i n g . I n o t h e r words, the claimant-employee is not totally d i s q u a l i f i e d u n t i l t h e r e has b e e n a s e c o n d act of misconduct or t h r e a t e n e d misconduct for which t h e r e has been a previous warning.' " J o n e s v. Brown App. 1992) .... & Root, 607 So. 2d 258 (Ala. Civ. "The b u r d e n o f p r o o f i s upon t h e e m p l o y e r , WalMart, t o prove t h a t W i l l i a m s i s d i s q u a l i f i e d from r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s . Ex p a r t e R o g e r s , 68 So. 3d 773 (Ala. 2010). " ' B a s e d on t h e f o r e g o i n g , we c o n c l u d e t h a t t h e c i r c u i t c o u r t and t h e C o u r t o f C i v i l A p p e a l s e r r e d i n i m p o s i n g on t h e c l a i m a n t the burden of disproving his disqualification from unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n on t h e b a s i s o f m i s c o n d u c t . We h o l d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e r has t h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g t h a t the employee i s d i s q u a l i f i e d f o r r e a s o n s o f m i s c o n d u c t , and we o v e r r u l e p r i o r c a s e s , i n c l u d i n g [Wal-Mart S t o r e s , 6 2110864 I n c . v.] Hepp, [882 So. 2d 329 (Ala. 2003),] [Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v.] S m i t h e r m a n , [743 So. 2d 442 ( A l a . 1 9 9 9 ) , ] and [ D e p a r t m e n t o f I n d u s t r i a l R e l a t i o n s v.] Jaco, [337 So. 2d 374 (Ala. Civ. App. 1976),] to the extent that they are inconsistent with this opinion.' "Upon c o n s i d e r a t i o n o f t h e e v i d e n c e and t h e l a w , t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s t h a t W i l l i a m s ' s c o n d u c t was n o t ' r e p e a t e d . ' W h i l e t h e r e was some i n d i c a t i o n t h a t i t had h a p p e n e d p r e v i o u s l y , t h e r e i s no e v i d e n c e t h a t he r e c e i v e d a w a r n i n g . I n sum, t h e C o u r t c o n c l u d e s that Williams's c o n d u c t was not of the serious n a t u r e w h i c h t h e s t a t u t e had i n m i n d when i t c r e a t e d t h i s d i s q u a l i f i c a t i o n . The C o u r t b e l i e v e s t h a t b e i n g f i r e d f o r t h i s t r i v i a l o f f e n s e , t a k i n g an e x t r a s p o o n f u l o f p o t a t o s a l a d , i s more t h a n a d e q u a t e p u n i s h m e n t f o r any w r o n g d o i n g . " I t i s t h e r e f o r e O r d e r e d , A d j u d g e d and D e c l a r e d t h a t A n t h o n y W i l l i a m s i s e n t i t l e d t o unemployment c o m p e n s a t i o n f r o m h i s f o r m e r e m p l o y e r , W a l - M a r t . The e v i d e n c e shows t h a t t h e conduct f o r which his employment was t e r m i n a t e d does n o t r i s e t o t h e l e v e l of disqualification under A l a . Code (1975), § 2 5 - 4 - 7 3 ( 3 ) [ b . ] . F i n a l Judgment i s h e r e b y e n t e r e d i n favor of the plaintiff, Anthony W i l l i a m s , and a g a i n s t the [Department]. Costs are taxed to the employer, Wal-Mart." The D e p a r t m e n t f i l e d a m o t i o n t o a l t e r , amend, o r v a c a t e judgment, which the t r i a l c o u r t d e n i e d on A p r i l 23, 2012. the The D e p a r t m e n t f i l e d i t s n o t i c e o f a p p e a l t o t h i s c o u r t on June 1, 2012. On appeal, the erred i n applying Department trial court o n l y § 2 5 - 4 - 7 8 ( 3 ) b . , A l a . Code 1975, which 7 argues that the 2110864 disqualifies an e m p l o y e e f r o m r e c e i v i n g b e n e f i t s o n l y i f the employee's a c t u a l or t h r e a t e n e d misconduct i s " r e p e a t e d previous warning that trial the warning. de 2 of of [ i s ] committed i n connection whether City ( A l a . C i v . App. 2d 540, S c o t t v. 541 finished of the act Prattville 2002). was v. § argues 25-4-78(3)a., repeated Post, 280 ( 1 9 6 7 ) , an "employee was bond paper 831 w i t h h i s work" after previous of law t o So. 2d facts 622, 628 195 So. 3 S c o t t P a p e r Co., The Department postjudgment motion. 2 Department "This c o u r t reviews the a p p l i c a t i o n novo." In The w h i c h d i s q u a l i f i e s an e m p l o y e e i f "a d i s h o n e s t act regardless individual." c o u r t s h o u l d have c o n s i d e r e d A l a . Code 1975, or c r i m i n a l to the after concealed also made A l a . 486, 488, d i s c o v e r e d w i t h a package in his clothing this argument as he in was its A l t h o u g h the t r a n s c r i p t of the h e a r i n g i s not i n the r e c o r d on a p p e a l , i t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y f o r o u r r e v i e w b e c a u s e we a r e c o n s i d e r i n g o n l y t h e a p p l i c a t i o n o f t h e l a w t o t h e f a c t s as f o u n d by t h e t r i a l c o u r t . See W i l l i a m s v. Hobson, 5 So. 3d 630, 633 ( A l a . C i v . App. 2008) ("[W]e have p r o p e r l y h e l d t h a t '[a]n a p p e l l a n t i s not r e q u i r e d t o i n c l u d e the t r i a l t r a n s c r i p t i n t h e r e c o r d on a p p e a l when t h e t r a n s c r i p t i s n o t n e c e s s a r y t o d e c i d e t h e i s s u e p r e s e n t e d f o r r e v i e w , ' s u c h as when t h e q u e s t i o n p r e s e n t e d ' i s one o f l a w , n o t fact.'" ( q u o t i n g D o u g l a s s v. A l l e n , 574 So. 2d 39, 41 ( A l a . C i v . App. 1990))). 3 8 2110864 leaving [ t h e S c o t t P a p e r Co.] p l a n t " a t w h i c h he was e m p l o y e d . The supreme c o u r t n o t e d t h a t t h e e m p l o y e e ' s " e x p l a n a t i o n [ f o r his c o n d u c t ] was n o t p l a u s i b l e a n d h i s c o n d u c t was i n c o n f l i c t with company r u l e s . " employee's action connection with Id. The supreme t o be h i s work" "a court dishonest so as a c t committed to disqualify r e c e i v i n g unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s . in the present in f a c t , commit t h e d i s h o n e s t price case, the t r i a l found t h a t t h e from Id. Similarly, court found t h a t W i l l i a m s d i d , a c tof paying l e s s than the f u l l f o r food purchased from t h e Wal-Mart d e l i . 25-4-78(3)a. him in t o the findings of fact set forth Applying § i n the t r i a l c o u r t ' s j u d g m e n t , we c o n c l u d e t h a t W i l l i a m s was d i s q u a l i f i e d from r e c e i v i n g unemployment-compensation b e n e f i t s . we reverse the t r i a l court's judgment, a n d we Therefore, remand this c a u s e f o r t h e e n t r y o f a j u d g m e n t d e c l a r i n g t h e e m p l o y e e t o be disqualified from receiving unemployment-compensation benefits. REVERSED AND REMANDED WITH INSTRUCTIONS. Thompson, P . J . , and P i t t m a n , concur. 9 Bryan, a n d Thomas, JJ.,

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.