Franklin Collection Service, Inc. v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security
| Docket Number: | 2014-CC-00555-COA | |
| Court of Appeals: |
Opinion Link Opinion Date: 01-12-2016 Opinion Author: James, J. Holding: Affirmed. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Violation of policy - Substantial evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Lee, C.J., Irving and Griffis, P.JJ., Ishee, Fair and Wilson, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): Barnes, J. Dissenting Author : Carlton, J. Procedural History: Admin or Agency Judgment Nature of the Case: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-20-2014 Appealed from: LEE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: HON. JAMES SETH ANDREW POUNDS Disposition: Affirmed the Mississippi Department of Employment Security Board of Review's decision that claimant was entitled to benefits Case Number: CV11-249(P)(L) |
|
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Franklin Collection Services, Inc. |
MICHAEL D. CHASE |
|
|
| Appellee: | Mississippi Department of Employment Security and Angelica Westbrook | ALBERT B. WHITE | ||
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Unemployment benefits - Misconduct - Violation of policy - Substantial evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Angelica Westbrook was employed for ten months as a collector with Franklin Collection Service. Brittany Thomas, a collection supervisor, testified that Westbrook was fired after Westbrook told a debtor that a $15 processing fee was an interest charge during a collection phone call, which violated f the Fair Debt Collection Practices Act and Franklin Collection’s company policy. After her termination, Westbrook filed for unemployment benefits. A Mississippi Department of Employment Security claims examiner approved Westbrook’s claims on the ground that Franklin Collection had not shown that it discharged Westbrook for misconduct. Franklin Collection appealed, and an administrative law judge affirmed the claims examiner’s determination. Franklin Collection appealed to the Board of Review which affirmed. Franklin Collection appealed to circuit court which affirmed. Franklin Collection appeals. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Franklin Collection argues that Westbrook’s false statement during the phone call is misconduct as a matter of law. Franklin Collection argues that misconduct occurs where an employer establishes an applicable policy and standard of behavior, the standard is communicated to its employees, and the employee violates this policy. However, an employee’s violation of an employer’s policy does not automatically constitute misconduct. Misconduct is conduct evincing such willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of the standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee. Westbrook testified that she did not believe she referred to the employer’s fee as interest. Thomas testified that Westbrook did refer to the fee as interest, and although this was a one-time incident, the policy called for automatic termination. However, Franklin Collection offered no proof that Westbrook deliberately misrepresented the processing fee as an interest charge. Thus, the ALJ’s findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive. Franklin Collection also argues that the Board’s decision was arbitrary and capricious, because the Board did not give a clear reason for finding that Franklin Collection failed to prove misconduct. However, the ALJ did give clear reasoning for her decision to affirm the claims examiner’s determination, and the Board’s decision was not made depending on the will alone or in a whimsical manner. Therefore, the judgment was not arbitrary or capricious. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
