Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Linda Johnson
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2007-CC-02236-COA
MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
COMMISSION A/K/A MISSISSIPPI
DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
A/K/A MESC A/K/A MDES AND CITY OF
CLINTON
APPELLANTS
v.
LINDA JOHNSON
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANTS:
ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
09/14/2007
HON. W. SWAN YERGER
HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
KENNETH R. DREHER
ALBERT B. WHITE
COURTNEY MCREYNOLDS WILLIAMS
MICHAEL A. HEILMAN
PATRICIA J. KENNEDY
CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
BENEFITS AWARDED
AFFIRMED - 03/24/2009
BEFORE KING, C.J., ROBERTS AND CARLTON, JJ.
ROBERTS, J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Linda Johnson was terminated from her position as receptionist for the City of Clinton
(Clinton). The Hinds County Circuit Court held that Johnson was entitled to unemployment
benefits. Clinton and the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) appeal
and raise the following issue:
Whether the circuit court erred, as a matter of law, by failing to affirm the
actions and findings of the administrative law judge and the Board of Review
of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security.
Finding no error, we affirm the judgment of the circuit court.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
From November 1, 2003, through October 27, 2006, Johnson worked as a receptionist
for Clinton’s parks and recreation department. On three occasions, Johnson had been
counseled for violating section 8.2.2 of Clinton’s Personnel Rules & Regulations.1
Additionally, Johnson had been made aware on many occasions that her job performance was
unsatisfactory.
¶3.
On October 4, 2005, Johnson was issued a warning for insubordination for failing to
follow the instructions of her interim supervisor. Specifically, although Johnson’s supervisor
told her to leave her workstation open, Johnson locked her desk when she went to lunch. In
July 2006, Johnson was given an assignment to prepare passes for a softball tournament.
Johnson failed to have the passes completed on time. Johnson received a written warning.
On August 16, 2006, Johnson was issued another warning and was suspended for three days
for leaving a cash drawer unlocked and unsecured overnight. Clinton terminated Johnson
after she failed to complete a project that involved printing and mailing over 500 letters to
participants in the National Senior Olympics Games.
¶4.
Just prior to her termination, Johnson filed a grievance with her employer concerning
her supervisor, the director of parks and recreation. Johnson felt discriminated against
1
Johnson had been counseled on October 4, 2005, July 31, 2006, and August 16,
2006.
2
because of her age, and she considered her supervisor’s conduct toward her as hostile. The
charges were found to be unwarranted.
¶5.
Johnson filed for unemployment benefits.
Johnson initially received benefits.
However, Clinton appealed and sent copies of the written warnings, performance evaluation,
personnel policy, and other documents to the MDES.
The administrative law judge
conducted a hearing and reversed the claims examiner’s decision to award benefits to
Johnson.
According to the administrative law judge, Johnson’s unsatisfactory job
performance constituted misconduct. Additionally, the administrative law judge ordered
Johnson to repay the $1,512 that she had received for unemployment benefits.
¶6.
Johnson appealed the administrative law judge’s decision, but the board of review
affirmed the administrative law judge’s decision that Johnson was not entitled to benefits.
Johnson next appealed to the Hinds County Circuit Court. The circuit court reversed the
administrative law judge and found that Johnson’s conduct did not rise to the level of
misconduct. Consequently, the circuit court reinstated Johnson’s unemployment benefits.
Clinton and MDES appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶7.
Appellate courts conduct a limited review of the decisions of the MDES. Hodge v.
Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 757 So. 2d 268, 270 (¶5) (Miss. 2000). “When reviewing
a decision of the [MDES], this Court must affirm when the decision is supported by
substantial evidence.” Reeves v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n, 806 So. 2d 1178, 1179
(¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2002). We will only disturb the MDES’s decision if it “1) is not
supported by substantial evidence, 2) is arbitrary or capricious, 3) is beyond the scope or
3
power granted to the agency, or 4) violates one’s constitutional rights.” Allen v. Miss.
Employment Sec. Comm’n, 639 So. 2d 904, 906 (Miss. 1994). We “must not reweigh the
facts of the case or insert [our] judgment for that of the agency.” Id. Pursuant to Mississippi
Code Annotated section 71-5-531 (Rev. 2000), “[i]n all judicial proceedings under this
section, the findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in
the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined
to questions of law.”
¶8.
“An individual shall be disqualified for benefits . . . [if] he was discharged for
misconduct connected with his work[.]” Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(b) (Rev. 2000).
“[T]he burden of proof of misconduct shall be on the employer.” Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5513(A)(1)(c) (Rev. 2000). Additionally, the employer is required to prove misconduct by
“substantial, clear and convincing, evidence.” Ferrill v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm’n,
642 So. 2d 933, 936 (Miss. 1994). “Misconduct” is defined as follows:
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 and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents,
and good faith errors in judgment or discretion were not considered
“misconduct” within the meaning of the statute.
Wheeler v. Arriola, 408 So. 2d 1381, 1383 (Miss. 1982).
¶9.
This Court concurs with the circuit court’s conclusion that Clinton did not present
enough evidence to meet its burden of proof of substantial, clear and convincing evidence
4
that Johnson committed misconduct within the meaning of Wheeler. Clearly, Johnson’s
performance did not meet the expectations of her supervisor. Clearly, Johnson lacked the
necessary computer training to perform the tasks expected of her. Johnson testified that she
attempted to take a computer class, at her own expense, at the local community college.
Johnson also testified that she could not meet the class schedule because of her schedule at
work and her employer’s unwillingness to allow her to leave her job thirty minutes early so
she could timely attend the class.
¶10.
Additionally, Johnson testified that she requested help with the mailing project from
Gisele Champlin, the administrative assistant to the director of Clinton’s department of parks
and recreation. The evidence indicated that: Champlin either failed to finish instructing
Johnson, Champlin experienced computer problems, or Champlin was also unable to figure
out how to complete the mail project. Johnson entered the 550 addresses into the computer
and had printed 550 letters, but another supervisor found the letters unacceptable. While
there is no dispute that Johnson did not complete the project, her unsuccessful efforts cannot
correctly be classified as misconduct.
¶11.
Johnson’s failure to complete these work projects were the result of simple inability,
inefficiency, lack of training, and/or inexperience. “The employer has the burden of showing
by ‘substantial, clear and convincing evidence’ that the former employee’s” actions warrant
a finding of misconduct disqualifying him or her from benefits. City of Clarksdale v. Miss.
Employment Sec. Comm’n, 699 So. 2d 578, 580 (¶15) (Miss. 1997). As mentioned, “[m]ere
inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or
incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and good faith
5
errors in judgment or discretion [are] not considered misconduct.” Wheeler, 408 So. 2d at
1383 (internal quotations omitted). We agree with the circuit court that Clinton failed to
meet its burden of establishing substantial, clear and convincing proof that Johnson was
discharged for misconduct within the context of Mississippi statutory law.
¶12. THE JUDGMENT OF THE HINDS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT IS
AFFIRMED.
KING, C.J., LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE
AND CARLTON, JJ., CONCUR. MAXWELL, J., NOT PARTICIPATING.
6
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.
