COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA 

Present: Judges Baker, Elder and Fitzpatrick 

JPS CONVERTER & INDUSTRIAL CORPORATION 

v. Record No. 1584-95-3 MEMORANDUM OPINION*

 PER CURIAM 

VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION DECEMBER 19, 1995 

AND 

CHARLOTTE S. LAPRADE 

FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF FRANKLIN COUNTY 

Kenneth M. Covington, Judge Designate 

 (Robert O. King; E. Grantland Burns; 

Ogletree, Deakins, Nash, Smoak & Stewart, 

on brief), for appellant. 

 (James S. Gilmore, III, Attorney General; 

Patricia H. Quillen, Assistant Attorney 

General; Lisa J. Rowley, Assistant Attorney 

General, on brief), for appellee Virginia 

Employment Commission. 

 No brief for appellee Charlotte S. Laprade. 

 

 JPS Converter & Industrial Corporation (JPS) appeals the 

decision of the circuit court affirming a VEC finding that 

Charlotte S. Laprade was entitled to unemployment compensation as 

she was not fired for work-related misconduct. On appeal, JPS 

raises two issues: (1) whether the court erred in ruling 

Laprade's actions did not constitute misconduct under Code 

§ 60.2-618(2); and (2) whether JPS condoned Laprade's misconduct. 

 Under Code § 60.2-625(A), "the findings of the [VEC] as to 

 

 *Pursuant to Code § 17-116.010 this opinion is not 

designated for publication. 
 2 

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." Shifflett v. Virginia Employment 

Comm'n, 14 Va. App. 96, 97, 414 S.E.2d 865, 865 (1992). "The 

VEC's findings may be rejected only if, in considering the record 

as a whole, a reasonable mind would necessarily come to a 

different conclusion." Craft v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 8 

Va. App. 607, 609, 383 S.E.2d 271, 273 (1989). However, whether 

an employee's behavior amounted to misconduct is a mixed question 

of law and fact reviewable by this Court. Israel v. Virginia 

Employment Comm'n, 7 Va. App. 169, 172, 372 S.E.2d 207, 209 

(1988). 

 The VEC specifically found that, although Laprade, along 

with other employees, entered her supervisor's office, opened a 

note to her supervisor from another employee, and read the note, 

the evidence was insufficient to show that Laprade actually took 

or destroyed the note. The evidence established that the note 

was returned to the box of candy to which it had been attached. 

Later that day, Laprade noticed that the envelope containing the 

note was in the waste box. Laprade made no comment at the time, 

but that night, returned to the plant and left an unsigned note 

under the supervisor's door noting that a gift for the supervisor 

had been thrown away. Additionally, the VEC found that Laprade 

was not the only one with access to the supervisor's office 

during the day of the incident. 
 3 

 Approximately eight months later, Laprade commented to her 

supervisor that she was the author of the unsigned note. Three 

months later still, Laprade was involved in an argument with the 

co-worker who had brought the gift of candy. Following an 

additional inquiry, Laprade admitted that she had read the note. 

 Laprade was subsequently fired for violating JPS'S policy 

prohibiting "unauthorized removal of company property or the 

property of fellow-employees, contractors, or vendors." 

 The VEC ruled that there was insufficient evidence that 

Laprade had thrown away the candy or the note. Furthermore, the 

VEC ruled that, while Laprade "exercised extremely poor judgement 

in reading the note and then not calling attention to the fact 

that it and the candy had ended up in the waste box," her actions 

"did not rise to the level of a deliberate and willful violation 

of the rules and standards of behavior expected of her as an 

employee." 

Evidence of Willful Misconduct

 "A forfeiture of benefits will be upheld only where the 

facts clearly demonstrate 'misconduct.'" Kennedy's Piggly Wiggly 

Stores, Inc. v. Cooper, 14 Va. App. 701, 707, 419 S.E.2d 278, 282 

(1992). 

 [A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct 

connected with his work" when he deliberately

violates a company rule reasonably designed 

to protect the legitimate business interests 

of his employer, or when his acts or 

omissions are of such a nature or so 

recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard 

of those interests and the duties and 

obligations he owes his employer. 
 4 

Branch v. Virginia Employment Comm'n, 219 Va. 609, 611, 249 

S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). We cannot say that the record as a whole 

necessarily leads us to a conclusion different from that reached 

by the VEC. Accordingly, we find no error in the rulings of the 

circuit court and the VEC that there was insufficient evidence of 

deliberate misconduct by Laprade. 

Condonation

 As the record supports the VEC's determination that there 

was insufficient evidence of willful misconduct by Laprade, we 

need not and do not address the additional finding that JPS's 

delay in taking any action against Laprade amounted to 

condonation. 

 Accordingly, the decision of the circuit court is summarily 

affirmed. 

 Affirmed.