Lightwine v. Republic R-III School District
339 S.W.3d 585
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011

Background

  • Claimant Lightwine worked as a custodian for Republic R-III School District since July 2007.
  • Her supervisor, Mr. Carter, warned in 2009 not to have her granddaughter perform her job duties.
  • The 2009-2010 shift for evening custodians was 1:30 p.m. to 10:00 p.m., with no changes without Carter's approval.
  • In February 2010, Carter observed Lightwine leaving early and having her granddaughter assist again; she was discharged February 26, 2010.
  • Lightwine filed for unemployment benefits March 1, 2010; initially awarded, but the Division protested and the Tribunal later found misconduct.
  • The Commission affirmed the Tribunal’s misconduct finding; Lightwine appeals to the Missouri Court of Appeals.

Issues

Issue Plaintiff's Argument Defendant's Argument Held
Was there sufficient competent evidence of misconduct? Lightwine argues no willful rule violation was proven. Employer argues Lightwine willfully violated clear directives and allowed prohibited assistance by a relative. Yes; substantial evidence shows willful disregard of directives and misconduct.

Key Cases Cited

  • Murphy v. Aaron's Automotive Products, 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (standard for substantial evidence in review)
  • Dixon v. Stoam Industries, Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (grounds for reversing Commission decisions)
  • West v. Baldor Elec. Co., 326 S.W.3d 843 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (definition of work-related misconduct)
  • Noah v. Lindbergh Inv., LLC, 320 S.W.3d 212 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (willful disobedience can constitute misconduct)
  • Scrivener Oil Company, Inc. v. Division of Employment Security, 184 S.W.3d 635 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (employer bears burden to prove misconduct)
  • Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (single disobedience can support misconduct)
  • McClelland v. Hogan Personnel, LLC, 116 S.W.3d 660 (Mo. App. W.D. 2003) (definition of willful and intentional conduct)
  • Lauderdale v. Division of Employment Security, 605 S.W.2d 174 (Mo. App. E.D. 1980) (credibility and inferences in evaluating evidence)
  • Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (weight of evidence and credibility on review)
Read the full case