for the Court:
¶ 1. This аppeal stems from the Mississippi Department of Employment Security’s (MDES) denial of Susan Mask’s request for unemployment benefits after she was terminated from her position as a seamstress аt Townhouse Home Furnishings (Townhouse). She appealed the MDES Claim Examiner’s (Examiner) decision to an administrative law judge (ALJ) who affirmed the Examiner’s denial of benefits. Mask then appealed to the MDES Board of Review which affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Next, Mask appealed to the Monroe County Circuit Court which also affirmed the denial of her benefits. Mask filed a motion to alter or amend the judgment or, in the alternative, a motion for a new trial or to correct the judgment under Mississippi Rule of Civil Procedure 60(b); the circuit court denied this motion. Feeling aggrieved, Mask now aрpeals.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶ 2. From January 10, 2006, to September 8, 2008, Mask was employed by Townhouse as a seamstress in the chair-sewing department. Her primary duty was to sew pre-cut patterns of fabric onto chairs and loungers. Before her termination on September 8, 2008, Mask received multiple verbal warnings for incorrectly sewing patterns onto furniture. Tina West, Mask’s supervisor, testified she had warned Mаsk at least five times about the quality of her work. West testified that Mask repeatedly sewed the pieces of fabric onto the furniture incorrectly which then required each piece of furniture be torn down and redone, ultimately costing Townhouse time and money to correct the errors. The event that led to Mask’s termination occurred on September 8, 2008, when Mask sewеd the rails backward on approximately fifty chaise loungers. The error resulted in several workers having to dismantle the chaise loungers which pushed back all remaining work until the next day. West tеstified that Mask made this error on multiple occasions and was warned after each occasion that this type of mistake was unacceptable. Additionally, Mask was verbally warnеd approximately two months prior to her termination for sewing the backs of multiple love seats incorrectly. Mask never provided any explanation as to why she was making these errors until she testified before the ALJ at the hearing. At that time, Mask admitted she had sewn the pieces incorrectly, but she did so because that is how West had showed her to sew them. Mask further testified that shе was not fired but was laid off due to lack of work.
¶ 3. After her termination, Mask applied for unemployment benefits through the MDES. The Examiner met with Mask and an employer representative from Townhоuse and determined that Mask committed misconduct; therefore, the Examiner denied Mask unemployment benefits on December 19, 2008. Mask then appealed the Examiner’s decision to the ALJ, and a hearing was held on February 20, 2009. After testimony from West and Mask, the ALJ affirmed the Examiner’s decision denying Mask unemployment benefits. Mask next appealed to the Board of Review; on April 13, 2003, the Bоard of Review adopted the ALJ’s findings of fact and affirmed the ALJ’s decision. Mask appealed the Board of Review’s decision to the circuit court. The circuit court, finding the Board of Review’s decision was
¶ 4. Mask now appeals and raises the sole issue “[t]hat [MDES] and the circuit court erred in finding that [Mask] committed disqualifying misconduct pursuant to [Mississippi Code Annotated] § 71 — 5— 513(A)(1)(b) [ (Rev.2011) ] ... and that said findings wеre not based upon substantial evidence, and were arbitrary and capricious.”
STANDARD OF REVIEW
¶ 5. In eases where this Court reviews the circuit court’s judgment to affirm or deny the Board of Review’s decision, wе apply the abuse-of-discretion standard.
Miss. Dep’t of Employment Sec. v. Clark,
ANALYSIS
I. Disqualifying Misconduct
¶ 6. The sole argument Mask raises on appeal is that the circuit court erred in finding she committed misconduct pursuant to Mississippi Cоde Annotated section 71 — 5—513(A)(1)(b) because the finding was not based on substantial evidence and was arbitrary and capricious. She contends that her errors were not misconduct because no substantial evidence was presented to show wrongful intent or evil design. Further, she argues there was not an employer policy regarding the number of warnings or types of warnings an employee must receive before termination.
¶ 7. In the context of unemployment benefits, the Mississippi Supreme Court relied on the definition of the term “misconduct” found in the Wisconsin Supreme Court cаse of
Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, et al.,
conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee. Also, carelessness and negligence of such degree, or recurrence thereof, as to manifest culpability, wrоngful intent or evil design, and showing an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer, came within the term.
Id. Further, “[m]ere ineffiсiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, or inadvertences and ordinary negligence in isolated incidents, and goоd faith errors in judgment or discretion were not considered ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the statute.” Id.
¶ 8. Mask argues that her behavior cannot be deemed misconduct as to deny her unemployment benefits because there was no evidence presented of wrongful intent or evil design. She cites the supreme court case
Allen v. Mississippi Employ
¶ 9. Keeping in mind our standard of review, we find the circuit court’s judgment was not arbitrary, or capricious and was based on substantial evidence. It is undisputed that Mask was employed by Townhouse fоr over two years and had demonstrated an ability to properly do the job assigned to her yet failed to perform the job up to her ability despite repeat warnings. In
Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. Claiborne,
¶ 10. In the current case, there wаs evidence presented that Mask had received numerous warnings for incorrectly sewing pieces of fabric onto pieces of furniture, yet she continued making the same errors. Unlikе the Allen case where Allen expressed a concern about being able to handle the duties of his job, Mask never expressed any concern and had, in fact, correctly sewed the pieces many times. There was also testimony that Mask’s errors would cause Townhouse to shut down other parts of the factory, move employees to dismantle the improperly made furniture covers, throw away the covers, re-cut new pieces, and sew them on properly which cost Townhouse time, money, and resources. Applying the holdings in Shavers and Claiborne, we find Mask’s repeated errors, taken as a whole, demonstrate a repeated negligent disregard of Townhouse’s interest. Therefore, this issue is without merit.