In the Matter of KATRINA BARNES, Claimant/Appellant v. JASPER PRODUCTS, L.L.C., Employer/Respondent, and MISSOURI DIVISION OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY
2014 Mo. App. LEXIS 54
Mo. Ct. App.2014Background
- Katrina Barnes was a full-time packing operator at Jasper Products from March 2006 until termination on March 28, 2013 for alleged attendance policy violations.
- Employer’s attendance policy terminated employees after four absences in a rolling 12-month period and quantified tardies/partial-day misses as fractional absences; employees were to notify management at least one hour before shift start (HR testified notice "before shift start" sufficed).
- Between October 2012 and March 2013 Barnes received a verbal warning, two written warnings, and a termination notice based on several absences/tardies (September 22, week of December 3, December 22, February 8, March 25, and tardy March 28).
- Barnes offered explanations for most incidents: daughter’s illness/medical care, car trouble, dog surgery, furnace repair requiring presence at home, and oversleeping; she reported absences and sought to use personal time where available.
- Deputy and Appeals Tribunal found Barnes disqualified for misconduct under §288.050.2; the Labor & Industrial Relations Commission affirmed. Barnes appealed, arguing substantial evidence did not support misconduct because the Commission found most absences were "unavoidable." The appellate court reversed and remanded with directions to find Barnes not disqualified.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Barnes’ attendance violations constituted "misconduct" disqualifying her from unemployment benefits | Barnes: Commission found majority of absences were "unavoidable," so she rebutted the presumption of misconduct and did not willfully violate employer rules | Employer: Repeated policy violations after warnings show culpability and satisfy misconduct standard; attendance policy violation supports presumption of misconduct | Court: Reversed — where Commission found majority of absences "unavoidable," those factual findings rebut the presumption of misconduct and do not support a legal conclusion of willful misconduct; remand to enter order that Barnes is not disqualified |
Key Cases Cited
- Fendler v. Hudson Services, 370 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2012) (judicial review of Commission decisions governed by competent and substantial evidence standard)
- Wheeler v. Pinnacle Automotive Protection, Inc., 413 S.W.3d 721 (Mo. App. E.D. 2013) (attendance-policy violation creates rebuttable presumption of misconduct under §288.050.3)
- Johnson v. Division of Employment Sec., 318 S.W.3d 797 (Mo. App. W.D. 2010) (2006 amendment permits attendance-policy violations to be considered misconduct when presumption not rebutted)
- Frisella v. Deuster Elec., Inc., 269 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (defer to Commission findings of fact but review legal conclusions de novo)
- Robinson v. Courtyard Management Corp., 329 S.W.3d 736 (Mo. App. E.D. 2011) (absences due to illness or family emergency, when properly reported, do not constitute willful misconduct)
- Cubit v. Accent Marketing Services, LLC, 222 S.W.3d 277 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (absences outside claimant’s control cannot be fairly classified as willful misconduct)