I N T H E C O UR T O F APPEA LS O F TH E STAT E O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO . 2 0 1 3 - CC - 0 0 6 8 9 - CO A TAM EKA G LADNEY AP P EL LA NT
v. M I S S I S S I P P I DE P AR T M E NT OF EM PLOYM ENT S ECURI TY APP ELLEE
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/ 27/ 2013 TRI AL J UDG E: HON . P AUL S . F UND ERB URK CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: M ONROE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: TAM EKA GLA DN EY ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEE: ALB ERT B. W HI TE L E ANNE F RA NKL I N B RA DY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES TR I A L C O U RT D I SPO SI TI O N : A FFI RM ED TH E M I SSI SSI PPI DE P AR T M E NT OF E M P L OYMENT S E CU RI T Y’ S DE CI S I ON T O DE NY BEN EFI TS D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 09/ 09/ 2014 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: B E F O R E L E E , C . J. , B A R N E S A N D F A I R , JJ. BARNES, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he M i s s i ssi pp i D epart m ent of E m ploym ent Secu ri t y (M D E S ) deni ed T ameka G l adney une m pl oym entbenef i t s af t eri tde t erm i ned s he vol unt ar i l y qui the rj ob w i thoutgood
caus e. T he ci r cui tcourtaff i rm ed. W e f

i nd s ubs t ant i al evi dence s how s G l adney di d not vol unt ar i l y qui t , butw as pa r tof a r educt i on i n f

or ce ( R I F) . T hus , w e r ever s e and r enderthe decis i on of the cir cuitcou rtand M D E S , an d w e rei nst at e G l adn ey’s unem ploym ent benefi t s.

F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY

### 2

¶2. G l adney w as empl oyed as a f ul l
- t i m e t eac her ’s assi s t ant w i th the A ber deen School D istric t. In M a y 2 0 1 2 , at th e e n d o f th e s c h o o l y e a r, th e sc h o o l p rin c ip a l, A n g e la I rv in , h e ld a meet i ng and t ol d al l t he t eac her ’ s ass i s t ant s she nee ded t o l ay of f t w o peopl e. She as ked for v o lun teers. G ladn ey w as the fi rstto v o lun teer. A ft er a se co n d p erso n v o lun teered , there
w a s “ a little d ra m a ” b e c a u se o th e rs h a d w a n ted to v o lu n tee r. R e g a rd les s, P rin c ip a l Irv in to ld G ladn ey an d the se co n d v o lun teer to w ri te a lett er b y lun ch ti m e stat ing the y w o u ld n o t r eturn th e fo llo w in g y e a r d u e to lac k o f fu n d s in th e sc h o o l d istric t. ¶3. B ef

or e w r i t i ng the l ett er , G l adney asked if the pre-ki nd ergar t en r oom w her e s he
w orked w oul d r eopen the nexts chool year . Pr i nci pal I rvi n s ai d no; the r oo m w oul d be cl os ed, and the mai n t eac herfort hatcl as s r oom w oul d notbe r eturni ng. G l adney a l s o cal l ed th e sc h o o l’s c o n se rv a to r, B o b S tre b e c k , an d a sk e d h im if w riting th e lette r w o u ld m a k e “ it lo o k lik e [s h e ] w a s w a lk in ’ a w a y fr o m [h e r] jo b o r [ s h e ] w a s q u ittin g o r a n y th in g lik e th a t.” H e s ai d no: “[ I ] tw i l l notl ook l i ke you [ ar e] w al ki n’ a w ay f r om yourj ob. Y ou can a l w ays come back t o the di s tr i ctand geta j ob. ” H e al s o s t at ed thathe “appr eci at e[ d] [ her ] s t eppi n’
u p to th e p la te fo r t h e d is tr ic t.” ¶ 4 . G lad n e y s u b m itt e d h e r le tter o n M a y 1 6 , 2 0 1 2 , s tatin g : “ I, T a m e k a G lad n e y [,] w ill notbe r eturni ng ba ck t o the A ber deen School D i s tr i cti n the s chool ye arof A ug ust2012- 2013 due t o Lackof

Funds i n the A ber deen School D i s tr i ct . I w i l l be r eturni ng t o col l ege in th e u p c o m in g y e a r.” ( E m p h a sis in o rig in a l). T h e fo llo w in g d a y , P rin c ip a l Irv in
announce d thatbeca us e “s o m uch dr ama” had ens ued af t ers he as ked f

orvol unt eer s, s he
w oul d choos e the tw o empl oyees t o l ay of f . G l adney w as no tone of the tw o empl oyees

### 3

chos en, butG l adney w as notas ked ort ol d t o w i thdr aw herl ett er . H erl as tday of w ork w as M ay 25, 2012. ¶5. O n J une 8, 2012, G l adn ey fi l ed foru nem ploym entbenef i t s . A l though the s chool di s tr i cti ni t i al l y agr eed w i th G l adney thats he w as partof the R I F, i tl at erchange d i t s pos i t i on and cha l l enged he rcl ai m . A f t err evi ew , the M D E S cl ai m s exami nerdeni ed bene f i t s , f i ndi ng thatG l adney ha d vol unt ar i l y qui tw i thoutgood caus e. T he cl ai m s exam i ner al s o or der ed G l adney t o r epay the $1, 158 i n be nef i t s s he r ece i ved bef

or e the dec i s i on w as m ade. G l adney appea l ed. T he M D E S adm i ni s tr at i ve l aw j udge ( A L J ) hel d a t el ephoni c hea r i ng, af t erw hi ch
s he af f i rm ed the cl ai m s exami ner ’ s deci s i on. T he M D E S B oar d of R evi ew af f i rm ed the deci s i on as w el l . G l adney appeal ed t o the M onr oe C ounty Ci r cui tCourt , w hi ch al s o af f i rm ed th e d e n ial o f b e n e fits. G lad n e y n o w a p p e a ls to th is C o u rt. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶6. “The scope of revi ew in an unempl oym ent - compensa t i on cas e i s l i m i t ed. A bs ent f r aud, the f

i ndi ngs of

f actof the B oar d of

R evi ew ar e conc l us i ve i f s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence . ” B r ow n v . Mis s . D ep’ tof E m p’ tSec. , 29 So. 3d 766, 769 ( ¶7) ( M i s s . 2010) . “A
re b u tta b le p re s u m p tio n e x is ts in fa v o r o f t h e a d m in is tr a tiv e a g e n c y , a n d th e c h a llen g in g p a rty has the bur den of

pr ovi ng otherw i s e. ” S

p ro u se v . Miss. E m

p ’t Sec . C o m m ’n , 639 So. 2d 901, 9 0 2 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 ). DI S CU S S I ON ¶7 . U nderM i s s i s s i ppi C ode Annot a t ed s ect i on 71- 5- 513A ( 1) ( a) ( Supp. 2013) , an e m p lo y e e w h o “ le [a v e s ] w o rk v o lu n tar ily w ith o u t g o o d c a u se ” is n o t en tit led to

### 4

u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits. F u rth e r, an e m p lo y e e w h o is late r f o u n d to b e in e lig ib le f

o r b e n e fits
m us tr epay a ny unempl oym entbenef i t s rec ei ved. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 19( 4) ( a)
- ( b) ( Supp. 2013) . G l adney a r gues s he i s ent i t l ed t o une m pl oym entbe nef i t s beca us e s he di d not l eave w ork vol unt ar i l y w i thout goo d cause, butw as partof a R I F. “[ T ] he ques t i on of
w he the ra n e mpl oy e e vo l un t a r i l y q ui t s orwas di s c ha r ge d i s a qu e s t i on of f a c tf orthe [ M D ES] t o de t e rmi ne . ” Hu cka b ee v. Miss. E m p ’t Sec . C o m m ’n , 73 5 S o. 2d 39 0, 39 4 (¶14 ) ( M i ss. 1 9 9 9 ). ¶8 . I t i s un di s pu t e d tha t G l a dne y i ni t i al l y ag r e e d t o be pa r t of the s c ho ol di s tr i c t ’ s RI F. G l adney vol unt eer ed forthe R I F; s he s ubm i t t ed a l ett ers t at i ng s he w oul d notr eturn the f ol l ow i ng s chool yeardue t o “l ack of f unds ” i n the s chool di s tr i ct ; and the s chool acc ept ed h er lett er. Sh e w as tha n k ed by the s ch o o l’ s co n serv ator fo r vo lun teering . L ater, h o w ev er, Pr i nci pal I rvi n announce d thats he had c hanged herm i nd aboutacc ept i ng vol unt eer s and
w oul d choos e the tw o e m pl oyees t o l ay of f . T he A L J f

ound thatw hen Pr i nci pal I rvi n m ade this ann ou ncem ent, the v olunt eer opt i on w ent aw ay. A tthis po i nt, a cc o rding t o the A L J, G lad n e y h a d tw o c h o ice s: (1 ) re sc in d h e r lette r, o r (2 ) n o t re sc in d h e r le tter a n d , in e ffe c t, vol unt ar i l y qui t . T he A L J f ound thatbe caus e G l adney di d notr es ci nd herl ett er , i tw as her i nt ent i on t o v olunt ari l y qui ti n or dert o att end col l ege i n the f al l . T he A L J al s o f

ound that G l adney qui tw hi l e otherpos i t i ons w er e avai l abl e. A l though G l adney’ s pos i t i on w oul d not b e re n e w e d a n d h e r c la s s ro o m w a s c lo sin g , the A L J fo u n d G lad n e y c o u ld h a v e p o ss ib ly
w orked el s ew her e i n the s chool di s tr i ct . T hus , unempl oym entbenef i t s w er e deni ed. ¶9. T o af

f i rm the M D E S’ s deni al of benef i t s , w e m us t f

i nd i t s deci s i on w as s uppor t ed by

### 5

s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e a n d w a s n o t a rb itr a ry o r c a p ri c io u s . B edford C are C tr. v. K i rk , 935 So. 2d 1135, 1138 ( ¶9) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2006) . “Su bst anti al evi dence i s thatw hi ch i s r el evant and capabl e of

s uppor t i ng a r eas onabl e co ncl us i on, ori s ‘ m or e than an s ci nt i l l a of evi dence . ’ ” I

d. at( ¶10) ( quot i ng G ilb rea th v. Miss. E m p . Sec . C o m m ’n , 910 S o. 2d 682, 686 ( ¶13) ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2005) ) . “[ A ] deci s i on thati s s uppor t ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence i s not
arbi tr ary and capri ci ous . ” Ja ck so n C n ty. B d
. Su

p ’rs v. Miss. E m

p ’t Sec . C o m m ’n , 129 So. 3 d 1 7 8 , 1 8 3 (¶ 1 4 ) ( M is s . 2 0 1 3 ). F a c tu a l f in d in g s a re le ftto th e M D E S ’s d is c re tio n , a s “ [i]t i s the r ol e of

the age ncy, i n i t s expert i s e, to deter m i ne t he w ei ghtof the evi dence and the
cr edi bi l i ty of

the w i tnes s es . ” Id
. at (¶1 5 ). ¶ 1 0 . S u b sta n tial e v id e n c e d o e s n o t su p p o rt th e M D E S ’s find in g th a t G lad n e y v o lu n tar ily qui therj ob w i thoutgood caus e. T he bas i c f act s of thi s cas e ar e undi s put ed. A f t eracc ept i ng G l adney’ s l ett er , w hi ch s t at ed G l adney w oul d notr eturn due t o the s chool di s tr i ct ’ s l ack of f u n d s , th e p r i n c i p a l c h a n g e d h e rm i n d a b o u tt a k i n g v o l u n t e e r s . T h e p r i n c i p a l c h o s e th e two empl oyees t o l ay of

f , and G l adney w as no tchos en. B utthe f actr emai ns thatw hen the pr i nci pal deci ded nott o al l ow vol unt eer s , she had al r eady ac cept ed G l adney’ s l ett er . W e f i nd thatonce G l adney’ s l ett erw as a cce pt ed, i tw as t oo l at e f orthe pr i nci pal t o change herm i nd
w ith o u t in fo rm in g G lad n e y th a t h e r le tter w o u ld th e re a fte r b e c o n sid e re d a v o lu n tar ily departur e i f

i tw er e notw i thdr aw n. G l adney r emai ned underthe i m pr es s i on s he w as pa r tof the R I F. T hi s under s t andi ng w as conf i rm ed by the s chool ’ s payr ol l cl erk af t erG l adney f

i l ed f orunempl oym entbenef i t s . G l adney’ s l as tday of w ork w as M ay 25, 2012, and s he f i l ed f or u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits o n Ju n e 8 , 2 0 1 2 . O n Ju n e 1 3 , 2 0 1 2 , th e p a y ro ll cle rk re sp o n d e d to

### 6

a M D E S “R eq u est fo r In form ati o n ” form , in w h ich the clerk stated the rea so n for G ladn ey ’s
s epar at i on w as a “R I F”/ “l ack of w ork. ” The A L J r ecogni zed thi s i n herf i ndi ngs , w hi ch
s t at e: “The em pl oyer ’ s f i r s tr es pons e t o the r eques tf ors epar at i on i nf

orm at i on w as thatthe
r eas on f orthe j ob separat i on w as a r educt i on i n f or ce due t o a l ack of

f unds . L at erthe
em p loy er a sserted that the c lai m an t vo lun tari ly resign ed . ” T h u s, ev en ba sed o n the s ch o o l’ s o w n u n d erstan d ing at th e ti m e G ladn ey fi led fo r un em p loy m en t ben efit s, G ladn ey w as p art of the R I F. I tw as notunt i l the cl ai m w as bef or e the cl ai m s exami nerthatthe s chool as s ert ed G l adney vol unt ar i l y qui t . T he M D E S’ s f i ndi ng thatG l adney w as notpartof the R I F i s not s uppor t ed by the evi dence . ¶11. A l s o, the M D E S’ s f i ndi ng thatG l adney chos e t o qui tt o r eturn t o col l ege i s w i thout any bas i s i n t he evi dence . A l though G l adney w r ot e i n herl ett erthats he w oul d “be r eturni ng to co ll eg e in th e u p co m ing y e a r,” the re is no ind icati o n in the rec o rd th at i t w as G ladn ey ’s i nt ent i on t o qui tw ork t o r eturn t o c ol l ege. G l adney s t at ed thats he had a t t ended ni ghtcl as s es i n the pas tw hi l e w orki ng a nd thats he coul d c ont i nue t o do s o. G l adney w as a damantthat
s he nee ded a j ob and w oul d have c ont i nued w orki ng atthe s chool i f notf orthe R I F. T he M D E S’ s f

i ndi ng thatG l adn ey vol unt ar i l y qui tt o r eturn t o col l ege i s nots uppor t ed by
s u b s ta n tia l e v id e n c e . ¶12. L i kew i s e, w e cannot fi nd subst anti al evi dence t o s uppor t the M D E S’ s f i ndi ng that G l adney c oul d have w orked el sew her e i n the s chool di s tr i ct . G l adney t es t i f i ed s he had
w orked f orthe school di s tr i ctf

ors even ye ar s and w oul d cont i nue t o do s o i f w ork w as av ail ab le. G ladn ey w as to ld h er p re-k ind erg arten class w as c losing , an d the c lassroo m ’s

### 7

m ai n t eac herw as notr eturni ng. G l adney as ked Pr i nci pal I rvi n i f the s chool w ould have anotherpr e- ki nder gart en cl as s i n the fa l l t o r epl ace her s . Pr i nci pal I rvi n s ai d no, l eadi ng G l adne y t o be l i e ve the r e woul d be n o e mpl oy menta va i l a bl e f orh e r . The AL J f

ou nd that “[ a] l though [ G l adney’ s ] s peci f i c cl as s r oom cl os ed, t he pr i nci pal di d nots ay thatw ork w as notav ail ab le elsew h ere in the distri ct. ” (E m p h asis ad d ed ). W e ca n n o t fi n d the p ri n cipa l’ s n o n d isc lo su re a m o u n ts to su b sta n tial e v id e n c e th a t o th e r p o sitio n s w e re a v a ilab le. T h is is sp e c u latio n , at b e st. ¶ 1 3 . W e lik e n th e s c h o o l d istric t’s a c tio n s to a “ b a it a n d s w itch ,” fo r w h ich G lad n e y sh o u ld notbe pena l i zed. G l adney w as l ed t o be l i eve s he w as pa r tof the R I F once s he turned i n her lette r. S h e w a s n e v e r to ld h e r le tter w a s re jec ted o r as k e d to w ith d ra w the letter . T h e d istric t, thro u g h it s p ay roll c lerk, co n fi rm ed G ladn ey ’s im p ression that sh e w as stil l part of the R IF
ev en a ft er th e p ri n cipa l’ s a n n o u n ce m en t th at sh e w o u ld ch o o se th e tw o em p loy ee s to lay o ff. B ecause ther e i s nots ubs t ant i al evi dence t o s uppor tthe M D E S’ s deci s i on, w e r ever s e and
r enderthe deni al of

unempl oym entb enefi t s and the or derdemandi ng thatG l adney r epay $1, 158. G l adney’ s unempl oym entbenef i t s s hal l be r ei ns t at ed. ¶ 1 4 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F TH E M O N R O E C O U N T Y C I R C U IT C O U R T IS REVERSED AND RENDERED. ALL COST S OF THI S APP EAL ARE AS S ES S ED TO TH E APP ELLEE . LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G , P. J. , I SH EE , R O BE RT S, M A X W EL L, FA I R A N D JAM ES, J J . , CONCUR. GR I F F I S , P . J . , AN D C AR L T ON , J . , DI S S E NT W I T HOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.