Dortch v. Zoltek Corp.
493 S.W.3d 18
Mo. Ct. App.2016Background
- Claimant Marion Dortch worked for Zoltek Corp. from April 2014 to September 25, 2015; Employer received an anonymous call on August 28, 2015 prompting a drug/alcohol screen.
- Guardian, a third‑party tester, came to the workplace that day; Claimant refused to provide a urine sample on‑site.
- Employer terminated Claimant after receiving Guardian’s record of his refusal and Employer enforces a zero‑tolerance drug policy allowing random or suspicion‑based testing; refusal violates the policy.
- Appeals Tribunal found Employer’s testimony more credible than Claimant’s (who said he refused because he would have had to urinate in front of a female), concluded Claimant violated the testing rule, and denied unemployment benefits.
- The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission adopted the Tribunal’s decision; Claimant appealed to the court challenging (1) lack of reasonable suspicion to test and (2) unfair/inconsistent enforcement of the rule.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer had reasonable suspicion to require a drug test (supporting misconduct finding) | Dortch: anonymous, uncorroborated call did not establish reasonable suspicion, so termination was unsupported | Zoltek: policy permits random or suspicion testing and employees may not contest the basis; refusal violates policy | Court: Did not reach reasonable‑suspicion adequacy; upheld finding of misconduct because Dortch refused a valid testing request under Employer’s policy |
| Whether Employer’s rule was fairly/consistently enforced so refusal qualifies as misconduct | Dortch: others were given 24 hours or off‑site testing; he was treated differently | Zoltek: random tests get different procedures; suspected‑use tests are done immediately for safety concerns; no contrary evidence presented | Court: Commission credited Employer; Dortch failed to prove unfair or inconsistent enforcement; denial of benefits affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Berwin v. Lindenwood, 205 S.W.3d 291 (Mo. App. E.D.) (Commission credibility findings are conclusive)
- Williams v. Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Shared Servs., LLC, 297 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. App. E.D.) (misconduct determination is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Menendez v. Div. of Employment Sec., 461 S.W.3d 837 (Mo. App. E.D.) (burden shifts to employer to prove discharge for misconduct)
- Quik N’ Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620 (Mo. App. W.D.) (substantial evidence standard review)
- Smith v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Couer, 406 S.W.3d 95 (Mo. App. E.D.) (single intentional disobedience of reasonable directive can be misconduct)
- Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App. S.D.) (same principle regarding misconduct)