Dorothy A. Washington v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2004-CC-01899-COA
DOROTHY A. WASHINGTON
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
COMMISSION
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
6/30/2004
HON. MARGARET CAREY-MCCRAY
SUNFLOWER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
DOROTHY A. WASHINGTON (PRO SE)
ALBERT WHITE
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
AGENCY DECISION NOT TO AWARD
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS UPHELD
AFFIRMED - 11/15/2005
EN BANC.
BRIDGES, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Dorothy Washington filed a claim for benefits under the Mississippi Employment Security Law on
September 14, 2003. On September 29, the claims examiner disqualified Washington for benefits on the
ground that she left voluntarily without good cause. A Referee set a telephonic hearing to review her appeal
on October 29, 2003 that Washington failed to participate in. The Referee decided that Washington did
not meet her burden of establishing good cause to leave her job. On December 4, 2003 the Board of
Review adopted that position and on June 30, 2004 the circuit court of Sunflower County affirmed this
decision. Washington appeals this decision that she did not prove good cause.
STATEMENT OF FACTS
¶2.
Dorothy Washington worked for the Mississippi Department of Corrections as a correctional
officer from June 11, 1996 to June 18, 2003. At this point she voluntarily resigned. Washington stated
that she suffered tremendous emotional trauma while working for the agency. She claims that other
workers sexually harassed her and other ongoing conflicts involving co-workers harassing her and creating
rumors about her personal business. Washington argues that this led to her stress and anxiety. She also
sent a complaint letter to internal affairs after leaving employment.
¶3.
On September 29, 2003, the claims examiner ruled that Washington left her position because of
the working conditions but failed to show that the “working conditions were a detriment to [her] health,
safety, or morals.” Washington failed to attend a telephonic appeal hearing which lead to the referee
affirming the decision without further testimony. The Board of Review received this appeal and affirmed
it based on the record. The Sunflower Circuit Court affirmed the case saying, “she failed to meet her
burden of showing that she left her employment involuntarily or voluntarily with good cause.”
ANALYSIS
¶4.
“The findings as to the facts of the Board of Review are conclusive if supported by substantial
evidence and absent fraud. Therefore, judicial review is limited to questions of law. The denial of
unemployment benefits will be disturbed on appeal only if (1) unsupported by substantial evidence, (2)
arbitrary or capricious, (3) beyond the scope of power granted to the agency, or (4) in violation of the
employee's constitutional rights.” Scott v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 892 So.2d 291, 292
(¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) citing (Johnson v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 761 So.2d 861,
863 (¶ 5) (Miss. 2000))
2
¶5.
Washington states that her doctor diagnosed her with depression and put her on medication. She
argues that her job with the Department of Corrections caused her the stress that led to her depression and
that the medication made her too drowsy to safely do her job. Washington points to Mills v. Mississippi
Employment Sec. Comm’n., 89 So.2d 727, 729 (Miss 1956) which noted that someone who voluntarily
leaves work may receive unemployment benefits if they left through no fault of their own. She also
correctly cites to Hudson v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm’n., 869 So.2d 1065, 1068 (Miss. Ct.
App. 2004) to note that she has the burden to prove her good cause to leave her job. However, she then
argues that the Commission violated her constitutional rights and that the, “the agency must review their
record and findings to determine whether evidence exists to support their findings that Washington
voluntarily left her job without good cause.” She fails to cite law for this point. She does cite Hoerner
Boxes, Inc. v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n 693 So.2d 1343 (Miss. 1997) on the point that
sexual and racial harassment constituted good cause in this case when an employee left work voluntarily
for purposes of unemployment compensation. However, in Hoerner, the referee whose hearing she failed
to attend reversed the claimant’s case and also noted that the employee had the burden to prove the
harassment.
¶6.
Washington failed to meet this burden of showing good cause. The Mississippi Department of
Employment Security acts as the fact finder and determines the weight to place on the evidence. Hudson
v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm’n., 869 So.2d 1065, 1068 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) The
department decided that Washington did not show good cause. Washington failed to testify before the
referee or present any evidence at that time. Without this testimony, Washington failed to present necessary
evidence to prove that the Commission erred in its decision finding that she did not prove she involuntarily
left work.
3
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF SUNFLOWER COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, CHANDLER, GRIFFIS, BARNES
AND ISHEE, JJ., CONCUR.
4
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.
