Walker v. Division of Employment Security
333 S.W.3d 517
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Virgil Walker was employed by Adesa St. Louis, Inc. as a driver and was terminated in July 2009.
- Walker left work early on February 17, 2009, receiving a Corrective Action and Discipline Notice.
- On June 29, 2009, Walker worked ~12 hours in extreme heat and later felt sick.
- On June 30, 2009, Walker left after ~10 hours and informed a supervisor; supervisor was unavailable.
- On July 1, 2009, Walker again left early; circumstances not fully developed.
- Adesa suspended Walker on June 30–July 2, 2009 and terminated him on July 6, 2009; the deputy initially found no misconduct, but the tribunal held misconduct; the Commission affirmed by 2-1 vote; the Department conceded insufficient evidence, and the court reversed
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there sufficient competent evidence to prove misconduct? | Walker | Adesa | No; misconduct not proven by competent evidence |
| Did tribunal findings contain material factual errors affecting the misconduct ruling? | Walker | Adesa | Yes; tribunal findings were inconsistent with record evidence and lacked proper basis |
| Who bears the burden to prove misconduct in unemployment-benefits cases? | Walker | Adesa | Employer bears burden to prove misconduct by a preponderance |
| Should the court rely on the Commission’s adoption of the ALJ’s findings when they are flawed? | Walker | Adesa | No; the court reverses due to lack of competent evidence and factual errors |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Aaron's Auto. Prods., 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo. App. S.D. 2007) (willfulness required for misconduct; not mere poor judgment)
- Hoover v. Cmty. Blood Ctr., 153 S.W.3d 9 (Mo. App. W.D. 2005) (willfulness and culpability required for misconduct; employer bears burden to prove)
- Guccione v. Ray's Tree Serv., 302 S.W.3d 252 (Mo. App. E.D. 2010) (reverses misconduct finding when employer lacks suitable policy guidance)
- Berwin v. Lindenwood Female Coll., 205 S.W.3d 291 (Mo. App. E.D. 2006) (burden-shifting in misconduct cases; requires support by record evidence)
- Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220 (Mo. banc 2003) (unemployment act provisions strictly construed against disallowance of benefits)
- Copeland v. Associated Wholesale Grocers, 207 S.W.3d 189 (Mo. App. S.D. 2006) (treats integration of ALJ's opinion with commission review)