Schilb v. Duke Manufacturing Co.
2011 Mo. App. LEXIS 451
Mo. Ct. App.2011Background
- Schilb was a warehouse lead at Duke Manufacturing from Oct 2004 to Dec 21, 2009.
- Duke discharged Schilb for violating a safety rule after a December 18, 2009 incident injuring a coworker.
- The Division deputy denied unemployment benefits, finding discharge for misconduct connected with work.
- The Appeals Tribunal upheld discharge, concluding two negligence incidents within four months showed misconduct.
- The Commission affirmed and adopted the Tribunal’s decision.
- Schilb challenges whether recurring negligence can constitute misconduct and whether an isolated act can satisfy the standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Can recurrence of negligence support misconduct? | Schilb argues two incidents separated by four months can constitute misconduct. | Duke contends the two acts show recurring negligence that meets misconduct. | Recurrence not shown; not misconduct as a matter of law. |
| Is a single act of negligence enough to constitute misconduct connected with work? | Schilb contends the incident was negligent but not misconduct. | Defendant argues the act violated safety rules and showed disregard, a0constituting misconduct. | Isolated negligence is not misconduct; reversal of Commission. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yellow Freight Sys. v. Thomas, 987 S.W.2d 1 (Mo.App. W.D.1998) (recurrence not defined by statute; misconduct requires more than isolated negligence)
- Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo.App. S.D.2009) (misconduct; lawfulness of denial reviewed on substantial evidence)
- Peoples v. ESI Mail Pharm. Servs., Inc., 213 S.W.3d 710 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (recurrence/culpability analysis in misconduct context)
- Dobberstein v. Charter Communications, Inc., 241 S.W.3d 849 (Mo.App. E.D.2007) (burden on employer to prove misconduct with competent evidence)
- Wieland v. St. Anthony's Med. Ctr., 294 S.W.3d 77 (Mo.App. E.D.2009) (standard of review and evidence consideration for misconduct)
- Dixon v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 106 S.W.3d 536 (Mo.App. W.D.2003) (poor job performance vs. misconduct; lack of culpability)
- Hoover v. Cmty. Blood Ctr., 153 S.W.3d 9 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (mistakes with prior reprimands; lack of culpability)
- Frisella v. Deuster Elec., Inc., 269 S.W.3d 895 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (repeated mistakes without willful intent; poor job performance)