Bridges v. Missouri Southern State University
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 299
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Employee Bridges, an accounting specialist, was discharged for misconduct connected with work on November 5, 2010.
- She had been warned in July 2010 for dishonesty, unprofessional behavior, and delay in returning a $25 audit item.
- In late October 2010 she submitted a check request reimbursing the DOE for overpayments, with details about 105 people still needing reimbursement.
- Employer introduced Exhibit 1 at the hearing, including warnings and an email admitting the 105 people; Bridges objected that the documents were false.
- The referee admitted the documents; Bridges testified that she had been trying to process payments and had excuses for delays.
- The Appeals Tribunal and the Commission held Bridges was discharged for misconduct connected with work; Bridges appealed claiming hearsay and lack of competent substantial evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Bridges’ hearsay objection waived? | Bridges argued the documents were hearsay and not competent evidence. | Employer contends Bridges’ conduct and admissions show waiver of objection. | Yes; objection waived; exhibits admitted as substantial evidence. |
| Did Bridges commit misconduct connected with work? | Bridges argues lack of timely processing due to misunderstanding and procedures. | Employer shows deliberate disregard of duties by delaying reimbursements for overpayments. | Yes; misconduct established; unemployment benefits denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Q Stop III, 268 S.W.3d 467 (Mo.App.2008) (hearsay evidence may be admitted but must be competent and substantial on the record)
- Bostic v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, 216 S.W.3d 723 (Mo.App.2007) (employer burden to prove misconduct after alleging discharge for misconduct)
- Helfrich v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n, 756 S.W.2d 663 (Mo.App.1988) (hearsay objections may be waived; agency may consider otherwise admitted hearsay)
- Jenkins v. George Gipson Enterprises, LLC, 326 S.W.3d 839 (Mo.App.2010) (conduct implying objection can affect waiver analysis)
- Wright v. Casey's Marketing Co., 326 S.W.3d 884 (Mo.App.2010) (single instance of misfeasance can constitute misconduct)
- Freeman v. Gary Glass & Mirror, L.L.C., 276 S.W.3d 388 (Mo.App.2009) (burden-shifting in proving misconduct)
- Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo.App.2009) (standards for reviewing Commission decisions; prescribes competent evidence)