Wright v. Casey's Marketing Co.
2010 Mo. App. LEXIS 1685
| Mo. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Wright was employed by Casey's Marketing Company in Adrian, MO, as a store manager for about 16 months after being hired in April 2008.
- On Aug. 10, 2009, Casey's terminated Wright for violating the company's Robbery Deterrent Guidelines by leaving approximately $11,000 in deposits unsecured in an unlocked drawer.
- The deposits were supposed to be kept in a locked safe except when counting or depositing; the policy warned that failure to secure deposits would result in suspension or termination.
- Wright counted the money and, after receiving a call to pick up produce at another store, left the money unsecured in an unlocked drawer for about 1.5 hours.
- A supervisor discovered the deposits during an audit, Wright admitted the lapse, and was discharged; the Division of Employment Security initially disqualified her from benefits for misconduct connected with work.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether leaving deposits unsecured constitutes misconduct | Wright argues the act was ordinary negligence, not misconduct. | Casey's argues the rule was strict and violated policy, constituting misconduct. | Yes; the conduct constitutes misconduct under the policy. |
| Whether Wright's conduct was intentional or merely negligent | Wright asserts the act was a mistake/ordinary negligence. | Casey's shows Wright knowingly violated a strict rule. | Willful and intentional disregard found; not mere negligence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Holly v. Tamko Bldg. Prods., Inc., 318 S.W.3d 284 (Mo.App.2010) (definition of misconduct in unemployment context)
- Koret of California, Inc. v. Zimmerman, 941 S.W.2d 886 (Mo.App.1997) (deliberate disregard of known policies supports misconduct)
- Hurlbut v. Labor & Industrial Relations Comm., 761 S.W.2d 282 (Mo.App.1988) (duty to follow employer’s policies despite time constraints)
- Scrivener Oil Co. v. Crider, 304 S.W.3d 261 (Mo.App.2010) (trier of fact may accept/ reject witness testimony; misconduct defined by policy violation)
- Noah v. Lindbergh Inv., LLC, 320 S.W.3d 212 (Mo.App.2010) (willful violation of reasonable work rule can be misconduct)