West v. Baldor Electric Co.
326 S.W.3d 843
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- West, a Baldor auto punch press operator, was discharged on Oct. 2, 2009 for alleged misconduct related to a sexual incident with a co-worker.
- After discharge, West applied for unemployment benefits and Baldor protested, attaching company policies prohibiting leaving work areas during work hours without permission.
- West testified the incident involved consensual kissing and touching without any explicit policy violation, while Baldor claimed the event occurred on company time and premises.
- The DES Deputy determined West was disqualified for aggravated misconduct connected with work, and the Appeals Tribunal later reversed this finding, concluding no misconduct was proven.
- The Commission reversed the Tribunal, holding West’s conduct—leaving his work area and engaging in sexual conduct on company premises—constituted misconduct connected with work, and the Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did West’s on‑the‑job sexual conduct constitute misconduct connected with work? | West argues it was poor judgment, not misconduct. | Baldor argues it was a deliberate violation of work rules. | Yes, it was misconduct. |
| Does consent affect whether conduct is misconduct? | West contends consent negates misconduct. | Baldor contends consent does not erase violation of policy. | Consent does not negate misconduct. |
| Was the Commission’s finding supported by substantial competent evidence? | West asserts insufficient evidence. | Baldor asserts clear evidence of rule violation. | Yes, supported; Commission affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Murphy v. Aaron's Auto. Prods., 232 S.W.3d 616 (Mo.App. S.D.2007) (willful violation of employer rules required for work misconduct)
- Hoover v. Cmty. Blood Ctr., 153 S.W.3d 9 (Mo.App. W.D.2005) (work misconduct requires willful disregard of standards)
- RPCS, Inc. v. Waters, 190 S.W.3d 580 (Mo.App. S.D.2006) (willful disregard or deliberate violation supports misconduct)
- Ernst v. Sumner Group, Inc., 264 S.W.3d 669 (Mo.App. E.D.2008) (deliberate violation of employer rules constitutes misconduct)
- Acord v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n, 607 S.W.2d 174 (Mo.App. S.D.1980) (disregard of standards can be misconduct)
- Simpson Sheet Metal, Inc. v. Labor and Indus. Relations Comm'n, 901 S.W.2d 312 (Mo.App. S.D.1995) (derogatory conduct toward employer can be misconduct)
- Holly v. Tamko Bldg. Prod., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 284 (Mo.App. S.D.2010) (reasonableness of work rules supports misconduct finding)