Murray v. Texas Workforce Commission, 337 S.W.3d 522

Murray was employed as a resource operations analyst by Comm South; Comm South used a progressive disciplinary system for absences and tardiness.
On Jan 31, 2002 Murray signed a warning acknowledging a fourth tardiness (Jan 16) and a fifth (Jan 18) with notice that further tardiness could lead to disciplinary action or termination.
On Feb 21 Murray received another warning for a Feb 14 tardiness; he signed acknowledging that further violations could lead to termination and he modified his schedule to arrive on time.
On Mar 8 Murray was late returning from lunch, which exceeded the allowed tardiness under the policy; he was discharged.
Murray applied for unemployment benefits; the TWC denied them as misconduct under Tex. Labor Code § 207.044, relying on Comm South’s attendance policy and related warnings.
The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of the TWC and Comm South; Murray appealed claiming lack of substantial evidence and denial of due process; the appellate court affirmed the summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Was Murray’s termination for tardiness supported by substantial evidence of misconduct?	Murray contends no misconduct; policy exceeded his conduct and amended policy is unclear.	Comm South showed policy amendment to five tardiness incidents and Murray acknowledged warnings; violations constitute misconduct.	Yes; substantial evidence supported misconduct.
Does misconduct require that tardiness affect job performance?	Missed work should not be misconduct since it did not affect performance.	Misconduct includes violation of policy adopted to ensure orderly work, regardless of performance impact.	No requirement that tardiness affect performance; policy violation constitutes misconduct.
Was Murray denied due process due to notice or hearing on termination?	Procedural due process was denied because of alleged policy issues.	Policy amendments, prior warnings, and notice provided fair process; not denied.	No due process violation.

Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706 (Tex. 1998) (presumption of validity of TWC decisions; substantial evidence standard applied)
Direct Commc'ns, Inc. v. Lunsford, 906 S.W.2d 537 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1995) (substantial evidence standard for reviewing TWC decisions)
Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830 (Tex.1986) (grounds for judicial review of agency action; reasonableness standard)
Lairson v. Texas Emp't Comm'n, 742 S.W.2d 99 (Tex.App.-Fort Worth 1987) (violation of attendance policy as misconduct; consideration of policy reasonableness)
Haas v. Texas Emp't Comm'n, 683 S.W.2d 462 (Tex.App.-Dallas 1984) (definitional scope of misconduct; no requirement of performance impact)
Levelland Indep. Sch. Dist. v. Contreras, 865 S.W.2d 474 (Tex.App.-Amarillo 1993) (evidence sufficiency in disciplinary context; employee awareness of policy amendments)
Gonzales v. Texas Em't Comm'n, 653 S.W.2d 308 (Tex.App.-San Antonio 1983) (procedural due process considerations in agency actions)