Frances Fant Yarbrough v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2002-CC-00510-COA
FRANCES FANT YARBROUGH
APPELLANT
v.
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
COMMISSION
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:
APPELLEE
2/26/2002
HON. JOHN M. MONTGOMERY
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
JAMES DAVID MOORE
B. RAY THERRELL, II
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
TRIAL COURT AFFIRMED FINDINGS OF
BOARD OF REVIEW.
AFFIRMED - 04/08/2003
BEFORE SOUTHWICK, P.J., LEE AND MYERS, JJ.
LEE, J., FOR THE COURT:
PROCEDURAL HISTORY AND FACTS
¶1.
Frances Fant Yarbrough worked as a special education teacher with the Columbus Municipal
School System for over twenty years, but she was fired in May 2001. A hearing was held in August 2001
before a referee, after which the referee determined Yarbrough was not entitled to unemployment benefits,
since she was fired for misconduct. The board of review affirmed the referee's finding, as did the Lowndes
County Circuit Court. Yarbrough now appeals to this Court and raises the following issues: (1) Were the
findings of the Employment Security Commission supported by substantial evidence? (2) Did the referee
misapply the law in finding the appellant's unsatisfactory job performance acted to disqualify her from
receiving unemployment compensation? and (3) Did the circuit court err in declining to reverse the
commission? Having reviewed these issues, we find no error; thus, we affirm.
DISCUSSION
¶2.
Appellant Yarbrough's three stated issues all concern whether or not the referee's decision was
based on substantial evidence; thus, we combine the issues into one discussion. We initially look to our
standard of review:
This Court's standard of review of an administrative agency's findings and decisions is well
established. An agency's conclusions must remain undisturbed unless the agency's order
1) is not supported by substantial evidence, 2) is arbitrary or capricious, 3) is beyond the
scope or power granted to the agency, or 4) violates one's constitutional rights. A
rebuttable presumption exists in favor of the administrative agency, and the challenging
party has the burden of proving otherwise. Lastly, this Court must not reweigh the facts of
the case or insert its judgment for that of the agency.
Lewis v. Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n, 767 So. 2d 1029 (¶9) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000).
¶3.
The referee found, and the board of review and Lowndes County Circuit Court affirmed, that
Yarbrough was discharged due to misconduct connected with her work. The referee's opinion cites to
Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So. 2d 1381, 1383 (Miss. 1982), for a definition of the term "misconduct."
[T]he meaning of the term "misconduct," as used in the unemployment compensation
statute, was 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. Also, carelessness and negligence of
such degree, or recurrence thereof, as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design,
and showing an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the
employee's duties and obligations to his employer, came within the term. 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 were not considered "misconduct" within the meaning
of the statute.
2
¶4.
The referee's findings of fact refer to numerous instances of Yarbrough's misconduct including her
failure to follow approved procedures, inappropriate disciplinary techniques including corporal punishment
of a special education student, failure to provide proper supervision of students, leaving her class
unsupervised, and removing educational plans from the school in violation of school policy and federal
regulations prohibiting such action, among other things. Beginning in 1998, Yarbrough participated in three
plans for improvement in attempts to assist her in overcoming deficiencies in her job performance. These
plans included counseling, attendance at workshops concerning behavioral management techniques, and
assistance in designing an assertive discipline plan. Nevertheless, in April 2001 Yarbrough was suspended
after the school principal personally saw Yarbrough at her car with certain forms which, by law, were not
to be removed from the school. In May 2001, her employer recommended termination of employment,
and after a July 2001 hearing the school board unanimously voted to uphold her termination.
¶5.
Yarbrough rebuts some of the allegations and excuses her behavior as "good faith errors" or
describes that her actions were taken in response to difficult situations in the classroom. She further argues
that her termination was the result of unsatisfactory job performance and not willful or wanton misconduct,
the latter of which would disqualify her from receiving unemployment compensation. The referee's opinion
states:
The facts in this case show that the claimant was discharged for unsatisfactory job
performance. Claimant had been given several opportunities for improvement on
procedures and policies that she was already aware of. Claimant's failure to adhere to the
proper procedures and policies resulted in her discharge. Claimant's actions would rise
to the level of misconduct as that term is defined by law . . . .
(emphasis added). Yarbrough's argument fails to recognize the final emphasized sentence which shows the
referee's conclusion that Yarbrough's acts all evidenced her intentional disregard of her duties and rose to
the level of misconduct.
3
¶6.
In our review of the facts of Yarbrough's employment, we note that, although she might have made
"good faith errors" on occasion as she claimed, she, nonetheless, showed a continuing disregard for the
policies and procedures of her employer. As previously noted in our standard of review, a rebuttable
presumption exists in favor of the administrative agency, and Yarbrough, as the challenging party, has the
burden of proving otherwise. We are not permitted to reweigh the facts of the case or insert our judgment
for that of the agency and having found substantial evidence to support the decision and having found no
arbitrary or capricious action to exist on the part of the MESC, we affirm the circuit court.
¶7.
THE JUDGMENT OF THE LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS AFFIRMED.
McMILLIN, C.J., SOUTHWICK, P.J., BRIDGES, THOMAS, IRVING, MYERS,
CHANDLER AND GRIFFIS, JJ., CONCUR. KING, P.J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY.
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.
