Mitchell Reeves v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS
OF THE
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2001-CC-00267-COA
MITCHELL REEVES
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION AND MERIDIAN
MACHINE WORKS
APPELLEES
DATE OF TRIAL COURT 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:
CERTIORARI FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
01/10/2001
HON. LARRY EUGENE ROBERTS
LAUDERDALE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
LAUREL G. WEIR
ALBERT B. WHITE
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DENIED
AFFIRMED- 02/05/2002
2/26/2002
BEFORE KING, P.J., IRVING, AND BRANTLEY, JJ.
IRVING, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1. This appeal arises from a decision of the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County affirming the decision of
the Board of Review of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (MESC) denying unemployment
benefits to Mitchell Reeves. In this appeal, Reeves asserts a single issue: the decision of the lower court is
contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence and not supported by the law. Finding no reversible
error, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Mitchell Reeves was employed as a flame cut operator for Meridian Machine for fifteen years. He was
discharged on May 30, 2000, for insubordination. On May 25, 2000, Robin Hewitt, fabrication foreman
for Meridian Machine, instructed Reeves to clean up the parts that Reeves burned. Reeves refused and
asked for a helper to set up and clean, but Hewitt told Reeves that he was unable to hire anyone due to the
workload situation. Hewitt warned Reeves that if he did not comply he would be terminated. Reeves did
not comply and was terminated as Hewitt promised.
¶3. After Reeves's termination, he filed for unemployment benefits. The claims examiner determined that
Reeves was terminated for misconduct connected to his employment and disqualified him for unemployment
benefits. Reeves appealed this decision to the MESC. A hearing was held. Reeves appeared without
counsel and testified. Hewitt testified on behalf of Meridian Machine. Following the conclusion of the
hearing, the referee found that:
The claimant was discharged May 30, 2000, for insubordination. The claimant maintains that he did
not perform the duties due to a back injury and work restrictions on bending and lifting. However, the
claimant did not make the employer aware of any work restrictions and has not submitted any
documentation to support his claim.
****
The claimant was discharged for refusing to perform assigned duties. It is the opinion of the referee
that the claimant's actions constitute misconduct connected with the work as that term is defined.
Therefore, the decision of the Claims Examiner will be modified as to[sic] beginning date of
disqualification only.
¶4. Reeves appealed to the Board of Review and the Board affirmed the referee's decision. Reeves then
appealed to the Circuit Court of Lauderdale County which affirmed the Board of Review of the MESC.
ANALYSIS AND DISCUSSION OF THE ISSUE
¶5. When reviewing a decision of the MESC, this Court must affirm when the decision is supported by
substantial evidence. Richardson v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 593 So. 2d 31, 34 (1992). Section
71-5-513 A(1)(b) of the Mississippi Code of 1972, as annotated and amended, provides that "an
individual shall be disqualified for [unemployment] benefits . . . for misconduct connected with his work if so
found by the commission." Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513 A(1)(b) (Rev. 2000).
¶6. In Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So. 2d 1381 (Miss. 1982), the Mississippi Supreme Court defined
"misconduct" as "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." Id. at 1383. "Mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the
result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences [sic] and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good
faith errors in judgment or discretion" [are] not considered 'misconduct' within the meaning of the statute."
Id.
¶7. In the case at bar, Reeves's failure to clean up the parts as instructed by Hewitt constitutes misconduct.
Although Reeves contends that he refused because of his back injury and medical restrictions, no evidence
in the record reveals that he had any medical restrictions or that the employer was even aware of Reeves's
condition. The only medical evidence introduced at the hearing was Employer Exhibit 1, a medical release
from the Mississippi Spine Clinic, which stated that Reeves was released, without restrictions, to return to
work on September 7, 1999. Moreover, Reeves failed to discuss his alleged condition with Hewitt, or any
other supervisory personnel. When Reeves was asked at the hearing on July, 19, 2000, if he reminded
Hewitt about his medical restrictions, Reeves responded "[b]ecause it wouldn't do any good for me to talk
to [sic] anyway." For the reasons discussed above, the decision of the lower court affirming the decision of
the MESC denying Reeves's employment insurance benefits is affirmed.
¶8. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LAUDERDALE COUNTY IS
AFFIRMED.
McMILLIN, C.J., KING AND SOUTHWICK, P.JJ., BRIDGES, THOMAS, LEE,
MYERS, CHANDLER AND BRANTLEY, JJ., CONCUR.
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.
