Evans v. Division of Employment Security
354 S.W.3d 220
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Evans was a Field Representative at Contract Callers, terminated in June 2009.
- Evans sought unemployment benefits; the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denied them for misconduct.
- Contract Callers claimed Evans’ discharge was due to repeated customer complaints and inappropriate behavior toward customers.
- The Supervisor's Statement tied Evans’ termination to ongoing customer complaints, not to a failure to contact a supervisor.
- The Appeals Tribunal found Evans did not reliably prove rude behavior toward the apartment staff, and the Commission adopted this finding by a 2-1 vote.
- The Western District reverses the Commission, holding the misconduct finding unsupported by competent record evidence and remands for benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the misconduct finding supported by competent evidence? | Evans argues the record shows no timely failure to contact supervision; evidence supports his credibility. | Contract Callers contends the discharge was for repeated customer complaints and misbehavior, including failure to contact supervision; testimony supports misconduct. | No; misconduct finding not supported. |
Key Cases Cited
- Munson v. Division of Employment Security, 323 S.W.3d 112 (Mo.App. W.D.2010) (reversal where employer's stated basis contradicted by record evidence)
- Scrivener Oil Co. v. Crider, 304 S.W.3d 261 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (causation requirement for unemployment benefits)
- Schilb v. Duke Mfg. Co., 338 S.W.3d 392 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (review standard for whether findings support award)
- Walker v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 333 S.W.3d 517 (Mo.App. W.D.2011) (burden shifting on misconduct issues)
- Murphy v. Aaron's Auto. Prods., 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (definition of misconduct elements)