Seck v. Department of Transportation
434 S.W.3d 74
Mo.2014Background
- MoDOT terminated Seek for falsifying a doctor’s return-to-work certificate.
- Seek’s doctor’s August 2 certificate cleared him to return with no restrictions; Seek later altered it to say August 8.
- MoDOT learned of the modification and Seek was discharged September 8, 2011 for misconduct.
- Division denied Seek unemployment benefits under section 288.050.2; tribunal and Commission affirmed.
- Seek challenges the Commission’s decision in a Missouri judicial-review proceeding under section 288.210.
- The court applies deference to Commission credibility findings and reviews the record as a whole.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Evidence sufficiency for falsification finding | Seek contends record as a whole fails to prove falsification. | MoDOT argues evidence supports alteration to the certificate. | Evidence supports falsification finding |
| Misconduct under § 288.030.1(23) third category | Seeks strict willfulness requirement for misconduct third category. | Third category does not require willfulness; standard is broader. | Third category does not require willfulness; conduct qualifies |
| Connected to work requirement | Falsification caused no harm to MoDOT; not connected to work. | Misconduct need only be connected to work, not show harm. | Misconduct was connected to Seek's work |
| Affirmance standard and deference | Court should reweigh credibility and evidence against agency findings. | Court defers to Commission credibility determinations and factual findings. | Court defers to Commission findings and affirms |
Key Cases Cited
- Fendler v. Hudson Servs., 370 S.W.3d 585 (Mo. banc 2012) (defines varying mens rea across misconduct categories and deference to agency findings)
- Nevettie v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc., 331 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. App. 2011) (discusses whether misconduct requires willfulness)
- Bostic v. Spherion Atlantic Workforce, 216 S.W.3d 723 (Mo. App. 2007) (emphasizes standards of misconduct without explicit notice)
- Murphy v. Aaron’s Auto. Products, 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. App. 2007) (rehabilitative approach to employment misconduct standards)
- State v. Million, 794 S.W.2d 181 (Mo. banc 1990) (credibility determinations and appellate review)