Keaweehu v. 7-Eleven, Inc.
334 S.W.3d 666
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits; employer protested alleging misconduct for selling beer to a minor.
- Deputy denied benefits for lack of specific proof; Appeals Tribunal held a hearing with Ward and Claimant's testimony.
- Ward testified Claimant violated alcohol-sale guidelines; meeting occurred September 25, 2009, about training and cash-handling issues.
- Claimant testified Ward intended only to counsel, not discharge; he claimed termination occurred later, on September 28, 2009.
- Appeals Tribunal found Ward credible and discharged Claimant for disregarding warnings, constituting misconduct connected with work.
- Commission affirmed the decision, adopting Appeals Tribunal findings, and later issued a supplemental decision addressing credibility and discharge dates.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence supports misconduct connected with work | Keaweehu argues no sufficient competent evidence shows misconduct. | Employer argues Ward's testimony proves deliberate disregard of rules. | Yes; evidence supports misconduct. |
| Credibility of witnesses and reliance on Ward over Claimant | Keaweehu contends his version should be believed over Ward's. | Employer contends credibility determinations support Ward's version. | Yes; Commission properly credited Ward and upheld misconduct finding. |
| Whether the misconduct was connected with work under 288.030.1(23) | Claimant asserts actions after discharge cannot support misconduct. | Ward's refusal to heed instructions constitutes willful disregard of employer's interests. | Yes; continued refusal to receive instruction after warning constitutes misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Gibson-Knox v. Classic Print, 184 S.W.3d 201 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (credibility deference where conflicting testimony exists)
- Dixon v. Stoam Indus., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (disobedience to directive can constitute misconduct)
- Husky Corp. v. Labor & Ind. Rel. Comm., 628 S.W.2d 378 (Mo. App. 1982) (commission as trier of fact in telephone hearings)
- Five Star Mfg., Inc. v. Tanksley, 168 S.W.3d 719 (Mo. App. S.D. 2005) (misconduct defined and burden on employer)
- Williams v. Dutchtown Care Ctr., Inc., 313 S.W.3d 690 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (scope of review on whether facts support misconduct)
- Ayers v. Sylvia Thompson Residence Ctr., 211 S.W.3d 195 (Mo. App. W.D. 2007) (competent evidence standard in unemployment cases)