Jackson v. Walgreen Co.
516 S.W.3d 391
Mo. Ct. App.2017Background
- Claimant (Patrick Jackson) worked as an hourly customer service associate at Walgreens since 2009; Walgreens had a Social Media Policy prohibiting online harassment, bullying, and sexual innuendo.
- On December 27, 2015, Claimant posted a pornographic video to a male coworker’s Facebook page with the caption “I call it the M and L Expose,” while two female coworkers at his store had initials M and L.
- A coworker (M) was upset and reported the post; Walgreens investigated, concluded the post violated its Social Media Policy, and discharged Claimant on January 13, 2016.
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits; a DES deputy denied benefits for misconduct, the Appeals Tribunal reversed (finding no misconduct), and the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission reversed the Appeals Tribunal and denied benefits.
- The Commission found the pornographic post constituted sexual innuendo and a violation of Walgreens’ rule; Claimant did not demonstrate a statutory excuse for the rule violation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s Facebook post constituted misconduct connected with work | Claimant: post did not refer to coworkers and was not sexual innuendo; therefore not misconduct | Walgreens: post was pornographic sexual innuendo directed at coworkers and violated Social Media Policy, justifying termination | Commission affirmed: post violated policy and constituted misconduct, disqualifying Claimant from benefits |
Key Cases Cited
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (review of Commission’s factual findings uses whole-record substantial evidence standard)
- Johnson v. Denton Constr. Co., 911 S.W.2d 286 (Mo. banc 1995) (deference to Commission on witness credibility)
- Fendler v. Hudson Servs., 370 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2012) (whether findings support misconduct is a question of law reviewed de novo)
- Stahl v. Hank’s Cheesecakes, LLC, 489 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (burden shifts to employer to prove discharge for misconduct; rule-violation framework explained)
- White v. Div. of Emp’t Sec., 431 S.W.3d 583 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) (employer must prove misconduct; appellate standards for unemployment denial)