Fendler v. Hudson Services
2012 Mo. LEXIS 114
Mo.2012Background
- Hudson Services employed Fendler as an operations assistant in 1994; she verified employee hours for payroll.
- In July 2008 a new supervisor required entering exact clock-in/clock-out times; prior method of total hours was no longer sufficient without approval to use totals.
- Fendler received three warnings (including December 28, 2009) for not following the new verification procedure.
- In January 2010, Fendler failed to enter exact times on 11 occasions and was terminated on January 25, 2010.
- The Division denied unemployment benefits for misconduct; the appeals tribunal, then the Commission, upheld misconduct; the Missouri Court of Appeals transferred the case to the Supreme Court.
- The court now affirms the Commission’s finding that Fendler willfully violated explicit instructions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether repeated failure to follow explicit instructions after warnings constitutes misconduct | Fendler argues only negligence, not willful misconduct | Employer contends repeated disobedience shows willful misconduct under §288.030 | Yes; repeated, deliberate disregard supports misconduct |
| Whether negligence can support a finding of misconduct under §288.030 | Negligence cannot support misconduct | Statute includes negligent disregard when repeated or substantial | Negligence can support misconduct when coupled with deliberate disregard or substantial recurrence |
| Whether the record supports the Commission’s conclusion of willful misconduct given competing credibility findings | Record lacks direct evidence of willfulness; credibility should favor applicant | Commission credibility determinations are entitled to deference | Record supports the Commission's conclusion of willful misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Freeman v. Gary Glass & Mirror, LLC, 276 S.W.3d 388 (Mo.App.2009) (repeated failure to follow explicit instructions supports misconduct)
- Moore v. Swisher Mower and Mach. Co., Inc., 49 S.W.3d 731 (Mo.App.2001) (violating policy after being told to comply can constitute misconduct)
- Rush v. Kimco Corp., 338 S.W.3d 407 (Mo.App.2011) (burden shifts to employer to prove misconduct when discharge claimed)
- Pemiscot County Memorial Hospital v. Missouri Labor and Indus. Relations Comm’n, 897 S.W.2d 222 (Mo.App.1995) (strict approach to misconduct and discretionary denial of benefits)
- Hurlbut v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm’n, 761 S.W.2d 282 (Mo.App.1988) (conduct exceeding mere negligent error can amount to misconduct)