Brinda Patterson v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security and The Golden Manufacturing CompanyBrinda Patterson v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security and The Golden Manufacturing Company
BEFORE BARNES, C.J., GREENLEE AND LAWRENCE, JJ.
¶1. Brinda Patterson appeals pro se from the Prentiss County Circuit Court‘s judgment affirming the decision of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security‘s Board of Review (Board) to deny her unemployment benefits. After review, we find that the Board‘s decision was supported by substantial evidence and was not arbitrary or capricious. Accordingly, we affirm.
FACTS
¶2. Patterson began working as a seamstress at the Golden Manufacturing Company (Company) on January 3, 2012. On March 20, 2020, the Company shut down for two weeks due to COVID-19. When the Company re-opened on April 6, 2020, Patterson did not return because she feared contracting COVID-19, especially because she suffered from obesity and high blood pressure. On May 15, 2020 the Company terminated Patterson‘s employment for exceeding her 140 allowed hours of absence from work. Specifically, the Company determined that Patterson had abandoned her job by not returning to work on April 6, 2020, when the Company re-opened after the two-week shutdown.
¶3. Patterson subsequently filed for unemployment benefits with the Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES). Patterson claimed that she had not returned to work because the Company was not following required safety protocols, such as maintaining six feet between employees and requiring masks. Following an investigation, an MDES adjudicator determined that the Company failed to meet its burden of proof to show that Patterson‘s employment was terminated due to misconduct, as required by
¶5. Patterson testified that she never received documentation about her hours. She claimed she called every three days to inform the Company she was not coming to work. Patterson also stated that she stopped going to work because the Company “could not provide [her] a safe environment.” She testified that she suffered from obesity and high blood pressure. The ALJ asked Patterson, “So did you[r] doctor advise you not to go back to work during the pandemic?” Patterson responded, “Yes . . . .I turned the paper in. Yes. It‘s not safe down there.” At that point, the ALJ entered into the record Patterson‘s medical document entitled “Mississippi Department of Employment Security Doctor‘s Certificate.” The document was completed by Patterson‘s physician, Dr. Jennifer Pierce, on June 2, 2020. According to the form, Dr. Pierce treated Patterson for hypertension and obesity from December 14, 2018, to March 9, 2020. Dr. Pierce was specifically asked if she had advised Patterson to leave work. She marked, “No.” Dr. Pierce was also asked if she had released Patterson to return to work. She marked, “Yes.” When the ALJ asked Patterson about Dr. Pierce‘s release of Patterson to return to work, Patterson responded, “I mean . . . it‘s an unsafe environment. They could not give me six feet. They don‘t [do a] mandatory mask. I mean . . . it‘s not safe to go down there. They have cases . . . I don‘t want to get COVID[-19].”
¶6. After the hearing, the ALJ issued a decision reversing Patterson‘s award of unemployment benefits. In doing so, the ALJ determined that Patterson was disqualified from receiving benefits in accordance with
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶7. “[T]he findings of the Board of Review as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law.”
¶8. “An agency‘s conclusions must remain undisturbed unless the agency‘s order: (1) is not supported by substantial
ANALYSIS
¶9. Patterson‘s sole argument on appeal is that the Board erred in finding that she was not entitled to unemployment benefits when she chose not to return to work because of COVID-19. In her own words, she stated that “COVID-19 is responsible for more than 700,000 deaths in the [United States], and [the Company] was aware of my circumstances and would not promise me [a] six-feet guarantee or [a] guarantee [that] my co-workers around me would wear [a] mask.” Section 71-5-513(A), provides guidelines for when an employee shall be disqualified from unemployment benefits:
(1)(a) For the week, or fraction thereof, which immediately follows the day on which he left work voluntarily without good cause, if so found by the department, and for each week thereafter until he has earned remuneration for personal services performed for an employer, as in this chapter defined, equal to not less than eight (8) times his weekly benefit amount, as determined in each case; however, marital, filial and domestic circumstances and obligations shall not be deemed good cause within the meaning of this subsection. Pregnancy shall not be deemed to be a marital, filial or domestic circumstance for the purpose of this subsection.
(b) For the week, or fraction thereof, which immediately follows the day on which he was discharged for misconduct connected with his work, if so found by the department, and for each week thereafter until he has earned remuneration for personal services performed for an employer, as in this chapter defined, equal to not less than eight (8) times his weekly benefit amount, as determined in each case.
(c) The burden of proof of good cause for leaving work shall be on the claimant, and the burden of proof of misconduct shall be on the employer.
(Emphasis added). Here, the Board adopted the ALJ‘s findings of fact and affirmed the ALJ‘s holding that Patterson failed to meet her burden of proof to show good cause for leaving her employment. That decision is supported by substantial evidence in the record. The record shows that Patterson did not return to work when the Company re-opened on April 6, 2020. Although she claimed her doctor had advised her against returning to work, her medical form presented during the ALJ‘s telephonic hearing did not support that claim. Patterson acknowledged that she was aware of the policy providing for termination after 140 hours of absences. After Patterson exceeded those hours, she chose not to return to work.1 Dr. Pierce indicated that Patterson was able to work and that
¶10. AFFIRMED.
BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., GREENLEE, SMITH AND EMFINGER, JJ., CONCUR. WESTBROOKS, J., CONCURS IN RESULT ONLY WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED BY MCDONALD, J. McCARTY, J., DISSENTS WITH SEPARATE WRITTEN OPINION, JOINED IN PART BY MCDONALD, J.
WESTBROOKS, J., CONCURRING IN RESULT ONLY:
¶11. I agree with the majority‘s decision to affirm the circuit court‘s order affirming the Mississippi Department of Employment Services (MDES) Board of Review‘s judgment denying unemployment benefits to Brinda Patterson. However, I write separately to emphasize the absent language in our Mississippi unemployment-ineligibility statute in the midst of COVID-19 and how it should rise to meet the present circumstances.
¶12. Patterson was employed as a seamstress with Golden Manufacturing between January 3, 2012, and May 15, 2020. Golden Manufacturing closed its office for two weeks due to COVID-19, prior to Patterson‘s end date (March 20, 2020–April 6, 2020). On March 26, 2020, Patterson filed for unemployment benefits. Subsequently, Patterson did not return to Golden Manufacturing on April 6, 2020, or any time thereafter. Patterson called Golden Manufacturing every three days to report that she was not coming in due to COVID-19, as her high blood pressure and obesity put her at increased risk. On July 29, 2020, the MDES adjudicator granted Patterson unemployment compensation. Golden Manufacturing appealed, and a hearing was held on February 11, 2021, after which the Administrative Law Judge (ALJ) reversed the adjudicator‘s decision. The ALJ concluded that Patterson did not have good cause for leaving work, reasoning that “[a]n individual can contract a virus anywhere, not just at work.” The Board of Review affirmed. The circuit court affirmed.
¶13. Whether Patterson left work voluntarily and had good cause for doing so are both questions of fact for the administrative agency.
¶14. Under the statute, the good-cause subsections state:
A. An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:
(1)(a) For the week, or fraction thereof, which immediately follows the day on which he left work voluntarily without good cause, if so found by the department, and for each week thereafter until he has earned remuneration for personal services performed for an employer, as in this chapter defined, equal to not less than eight (8) times his weekly benefit amount, as determined in each case; however, marital, filial and domestic circumstances and obligations shall not be deemed good cause within the meaning
of this subsection. Pregnancy shall not be deemed to be a marital, filial or domestic circumstance for the purpose of this subsection. . . . .
(c) The burden of proof of good cause for leaving work shall be on the claimant, and the burden of proof of misconduct shall be on the employer.
. . . .
(3) If the department finds that he has failed, without good cause, either to apply for available suitable work when so directed by the employment office or the department, to accept suitable work when offered him, or to return to his customary self-employment (if any) when so directed by the department, such disqualification shall continue for the week in which such failure occurred and for not more than the twelve (12) weeks which immediately follow such week, as determined by the department according to the circumstances in each case.
(a) In determining whether or not any work is suitable for an individual, the department shall consider among other factors the degree of risk involved to his health, safety and morals, his physical fitness and prior training, his experience and prior earnings, his length of unemployment and prospects for securing local work in his customary occupation, and the distance of the available work from his residence; however, offered employment paying the minimum wage or higher, if such minimum or higher wage is that prevailing for his customary occupation or similar work in the locality, shall be deemed to be suitable employment after benefits have been paid to the individual for a period of eight (8) weeks.
¶15. It is undisputed that COVID-19 brought forth a global crisis and, more specifically, charged Mississippians into a state of emergency. With over one million deaths,2 and to this day no foreseeable cure, it is understood that COVID-19 presented an unprecedented circumstance. The COVID-19 crisis was an immediate and unforeseeable threat to life. Yet our Mississippi unemployment-benefits law
¶16. This absence left Patterson with no recourse when Golden Manufacturing failed to provide its employees with any assurances of their safety. Patterson argues that “[t]he Company I worked for couldn‘t give me a safe work place” because Golden Manufacturing did not obligate its employees to wear masks or to always stand six feet apart.5 It was produced at the hearing that Patterson called every three days to report that she could not return due to her high susceptibility of receiving COVID-19 because of her high blood pressure and obesity.
¶17. Accordingly, I emphasize, that due to COVID-19‘s unforeseen circumstances, it was Golden Manufacturing‘s failure to provide safe conditions for all of its employees that caused Patterson to leave her employment. While I cannot say that the Board of Review erred by finding that Patterson did not have good cause as the statute currently reads, I can say that COVID-19 should have been treated as a hazardous condition and that the result of this case exemplifies that our Mississippi-unemployment benefits law is lacking. It is left up to our Mississippi Legislature to amend section 71-5-513(A) and include an exception for national and state emergencies. Without such an exception, I must uphold the law as it is. Therefore, with great reluctance, I concur.
McDONALD, J., JOINS THIS OPINION.
McCARTY, J., DISSENTING:
¶18. I have 2 underlying health conditions which puts me in the high risk category. I take medicine for high blood pressure . . I was placed under a shelter at home order by the governor of the state and state health office Thomas Dobbs because of being in the high risk category. . . . The state health office was on the TV everyday begging me to stay home. What would you have done?
Letter from Brinda Patterson filed with the Prentiss County Circuit Court
¶19. Last year the Mississippi Supreme Court re-affirmed “that the underlying purpose of Mississippi‘s employment security law is to protect those workers not permitted to continue employment through no fault of their own.” City of Grenada v. Miss. Dep‘t of Emp. Sec., 320 So. 3d 523, 526 (¶16) (Miss. 2021) (emphasis added) (internal quotation marks omitted). The testimony and record in this case show that the claimant didn‘t refuse to return to
¶20. Instead, through no fault of her own, but because of an unprecedented global health crisis, Ms. Patterson had a good faith belief that her workplace was “an unsafe environment.” She later told the ALJ she was specifically concerned about the lack of distancing between workers and that there was no mask requirement. “I don‘t want to get Covid,” she told him.
¶21. And of course that is what this case is really about—not a note from a doctor. The majority rests its entire decision on whether Ms. Patterson‘s doctor forbade her from going to work, but this ignores the uncontested reality of April 2020 and our standard for misconduct. That time in 2020 was the very genesis of the spreading pandemic, one which has now been attributed to causing the deaths of 1,054,195 Americans6 and 12,912 Mississippians.7
¶22. In its determination at the first stage of proceedings, MDES found that the Company did not show “the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected to the work” and that “[t]he claimant is eligible for Unemployment Insurance benefits based on this separation.” Upon review, the administrative adjudicator cited Ms. Patterson‘s lack of good cause in overturning the MDES decision and therefore finding Ms. Patterson had committed misconduct.
¶23. It is well established that under state law “a person who voluntarily leaves work qualifies to receive unemployment benefits only if he can show that he had ‘good cause’ to terminate his employment.” Hereford v. MDES, 306 So. 3d 863, 866 (¶15) (Miss. Ct. App. 2020). “MDES Unemployment Insurance Regulation 309.00 states that in order to prove this fact, a person must demonstrate that an ‘ordinary, prudent employee’ in his predicament would feel compelled to terminate his employment.” Id. “He must also show that prior to leaving his job, he ‘explored’ alternatives to ‘quitting’ and ‘made’ reasonable efforts to preserve employment.” Id.
¶24. In Hereford, we found that a security guard who was confined to a wheelchair did not act as a prudent person when he “quit before finding out whether his employer would accommodate his need for a wheelchair.” Id. at (¶¶18) (emphasis added). Since “his medical provider ‘left it up to [him]’ to determine whether to continue working” after his physician told him “he would need an electric-powered wheelchair.” Id. at 864, 866 (¶¶3,8).
¶25. In affirming that the claimant was not entitled to benefits, we also determined he “failed to first explore reasonable avenues to remain employed before leaving his job, as precedent requires.” Id. at 866 (¶19).
¶26. In many ways Ms. Patterson‘s case is the opposite of what happened in Hereford. Unlike the security guard there, who quite simply did not seem like he wanted to do the job anymore, she wanted her job as a seamstress. This was not just a fill-in spot she had worked for a few weeks before getting sick of it. She worked from January 2012 until March 20, 2020—just over eight years.
¶28. Against the backdrop of an unprecedented pandemic that has killed over a million of our fellow citizens, whether someone had a doctor‘s note is unimportant. The reality of 2020 and the record before us conclusively show that Ms. Patterson did not commit misconduct. Under the unique facts of her health diagnoses and her workplace, she acted as an “ordinary, prudent person” should have acted in accordance with the advice given by our federal and state governments and their respective health departments.
¶29. Ms. Patterson‘s response to crisis was caution. That is not misconduct, and so I believe she should receive her unemployment benefits.
McDONALD, J., JOINS THIS OPINION IN PART.