Wooden v. Division of Employment Security
2012 Mo. App. LEXIS 525
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Wooden appeals a Labor and Industrial Relations Commission order disqualifying him from unemployment benefits for misconduct connected with work at Summit.
- This court previously remanded to resolve whether the January 25, 2010 rule violation was culpable/intentional or negligent.
- On remand, the Commission found Wooden knew of the trash-pickup rule and that he failed to perform it by 8:00 a.m. with no emergencies.
- The Commission labeled this violation as misconduct and denied benefits; Wooden challenged the ruling.
- The appellate standard of review in unemployment cases governs, with deference to Commission factual findings but de novo review of issues of misconduct.
- The court concludes there is no substantial evidence of culpable or deliberate misconduct; the violation may reflect poor judgment but not misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether misconduct exists with no culpable intent | Wooden argues no deliberate or culpable act; only poor judgment. | Summit contends the rule violation was a culpable disregard of duties. | misconduct not shown; reverse and remand for benefits at commensurate rate |
Key Cases Cited
- Rush v. Kimco Corp., 338 S.W.3d 407 (Mo.App. W.D. 2011) (misconduct burden on employer; de novo review with credibility preserved)
- Hoover v. Cmty. Blood Ctr., 153 S.W.3d 9 (Mo.App. W.D. 2005) (negligence or poor workmanship alone does not equal misconduct)
- Bostic v. Spherion Atl. Workforce, 216 S.W.3d 723 (Mo.App. W.D. 2007) (mere negligence not misconduct; require culpable conduct)