Munson v. Division of Employment Security
323 S.W.3d 112
Mo. Ct. App.2010Background
- Munson, a flight attendant for American Airlines for about 10 years, was late signing in on May 6, 2009 and parked temporarily in a no-parking zone to sign in; a police officer issued tickets for parking and for a lawful-order violation; Munson was detained after an altercation and later released after approximately 24 hours in custody; American Airlines convened multiple 31-R meetings and ultimately discharged Munson for dishonesty and misrepresentation related to the May 6 incident; the Division of Employment Security initially disqualified Munson for five weeks for misconduct related to work; on appeal, the Commission affirmed the disqualification and Munson timely appealed to the Western District court of Missouri; the court remands for further factual findings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Munson discharged for misconduct related to work? | Munson: discharge based on dishonesty; record shows no evidence of misconduct. | Division: discharge for dishonesty and misrepresentation, not simply parking; misconduct proven by false information. | Remand for factual resolution; record insufficient to support misconduct finding. |
| Did the Commission make essential factual findings to permit meaningful review? | Record undisputed on reason for discharge; Commission failed to resolve disputed issues. | Commission relied on its findings; absence of resolving all facts precludes review. | Reversed and remanded for complete factual findings. |
| Is there sufficient evidence to sustain the award under § 288.210? | No competent evidence tying discharge to misconduct as defined. | Discharge for dishonesty constitutes misconduct under statute. | Need remand to determine precise facts supporting or refuting misconduct. |
Key Cases Cited
- Higgins v. Missouri Div. of Emp't Sec., 167 S.W.3d 275 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (deference to Commission on credibility; review of law applied to facts remains)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (standard for reviewing Commission determinations)
- Peck v. La Macchia Enters., 202 S.W.3d 77 (Mo.App. W.D.2006) (burden shifts to employer to prove misconduct)
- Dolgencorp, Inc. v. Zatorski, 134 S.W.3d 813 (Mo.App. W.D.2004) (need resolution of essential factual issues for intelligent review)
- Ahearn v. Lewis Café, Inc., 308 S.W.3d 294 (Mo.App. E.D.2010) (reversal when Commission fails to address essential facts)