Smith v. Delmar Gardens of Creve Coeur
406 S.W.3d 95
Mo. Ct. App.2013Background
- Claimant (housekeeper) employed by Delmar Gardens from Nov 2007 to Apr 16, 2012; employer policy required vacuuming/mopping each cleaned room and submitting checklists.
- On Apr 14, 2012, supervisor Hayes observed debris in nine of Claimant’s assigned rooms; Hayes confronted Claimant around 3:00 p.m. and walked her through the nine rooms.
- Hayes instructed Claimant to re-clean the rooms; Claimant said she had cleaned them and left after clocking out; employer later found only one of the nine rooms had actually been re-cleaned.
- Employer terminated Claimant on Apr 16 for failing to perform assigned work and not following corrective instructions; Claimant filed for unemployment benefits that day.
- Deputy and Appeals Tribunal denied benefits, finding misconduct connected with work; the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission unanimously affirmed; Claimant appealed to the court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s conduct amounted to statutory "misconduct" disqualifying unemployment benefits | Smith: infractions were minor poor workmanship, not intentional misconduct | Employer: Claimant willfully failed to comply with a reasonable, specific directive to re-clean the rooms | Court: Affirmed—refusal to follow a reasonable, specific directive (one instance) constitutes misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Berwin v. Lindenwood, 205 S.W.3d 291 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (Commission’s factual findings and witness credibility are conclusive on review)
- Duncan v. Accent Marketing, LLC, 328 S.W.3d 488 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (failure to follow instructions is not necessarily misconduct absent evidence of deliberate conduct)
- Dixon v. Stoam Indus., Inc., 216 S.W.3d 688 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (refusal to obey a reasonable, work-related directive can constitute misconduct)
- Finner v. Americold Logistics, LLC, 298 S.W.3d 580 (Mo. App. S.D. 2009) (single intentional disobedience can be sufficient for misconduct)
- Frisella v. Deuster Elec., Inc., 269 S.W.3d 895 (Mo. App. E.D. 2008) (distinguishes employer-justified discharge from statutory misconduct disqualifying benefits)
- Quik ’N Tasty Foods, Inc. v. Div. of Employment Sec., 17 S.W.3d 620 (Mo. App. W.D. 2000) (standard for competent and substantial evidence review of unemployment decisions)
- Williams v. Enterprise Rent‑A‑Car Shared Servs., LLC, 297 S.W.3d 139 (Mo. App. E.D. 2009) (determination of discharge for misconduct reviewed de novo)
- Croy v. Div. of Employment Sec., 187 S.W.3d 888 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (burden shifts to employer to prove misconduct when seeking to deny benefits)