I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 6 - CC- 0 1 9 1 6 - S CT PAT RICI A A. S HERM AN
v. M I SS I SS I PPI EM PLOY M EN T SECUR I TY COM M I S S ION D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 10/ 03/ 2006 T RI AL J UDGE : HON. KAT HY KI NG J AC KS ON COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: J ACKSON COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT AT T OR NE YS F OR AP P E L L ANT : J OHN C . J OP L I NG J EREM Y D AV I D EI SLER ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLEE: ALB ERT B. W HI TE NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - STATE BO AR DS A ND AG ENC I ES 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 - 08/ 28/ 2008 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. RAN DO LPH, J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶ 1 . F o llo w in g H u rric a n e K a trin a , P a tric ia S h e rm a n w a s , in ter a lia , ins t ruct ed by her
e mp l o y e rt o c h a r g e a n d c o l l e c tr o o m r a t e s g r e a t e rth a n r o o m r a t e s c h a r g e d b e f o r e th e s t o r m. Soon t her eaf

t er , s he qui therpos i t i on as a mot el des k cl erk. I ni t i al l y, Sher m an w as aw ar ded unempl oym entbenef

i t s , butl at ert he B oar d of R evi ew f

ort he M i s s i s s i ppi D epart m entof E m pl oym ent S ecur i t y ( “M D E S”) deni ed Sherm an’ s cl ai m . T he C i r cui tC our tof J acks on C o u n ty , M iss iss ip p i, affirm e d . F ro m th a t ru lin g p ro c e e d s th is a p p e a l.

### Sher man had be en in that pos ition s inc e Marc h 2000. 1 

### Acc ording t o the Adminis trativeAppe al s Off ic er ( “AAO”) , “[ r] ac k rates are 2 

### publish ed max imum rates estab lishedannuallybyho tels andmotels.” Sher man al so a ll ege d that t

he m ote l doubl e- re nte d i ts room s, re fus ed t o honor Re d 3 

### Cros s vouc her s, re fus ed t o ac cept c re dit cards , an d rented rooms that we reunsui ta blefor habi tati on. Howe ver , the Days Inn di sput ed ea ch of the sef ac t is sue s, and the MDES f ound for th e Days Inn . Onsuch find ing s, this Court deems deferenc e app rop riate. See Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-5-531 (re ena ct ed unde r 2008 Mi ss . H. B. 1, Sec ti on 45) ( “[ i] n any j udic ia l pro ceedin g und er this sectio n, th e find ing s of th e Bo ard o f Rev iew as to the facts, if suppor te d by evi denc e and in theabse nceof fra ud, sha llbe conc lus ive , and thejuris dic ti on of the c ourt

s ha l lb e c on f

i ne d t o qu e s t i on s o f

l aw” )
. Ac c ording ly, w e a ddr e s s o nly the un disp utedandcase-disp ositiv e qu estionof lawpresented b y th e increasedrates. 2 F ACT S AND P ROCE DURAL HI S TORY ¶2. O n A ugus t 26, 2005, i n ant i ci pat i on of H urr i cane K atr i na m aki ng l andf al l , G overnor H al ey B arbour decl ar ed a s t at e of emer gency. A tand bef or e thatt i m e, Sher m an w as empl oyed as a des k cler k att he D ays I nn i n M os s Poi nt , M i s s i s s i ppi
. Pr i ort o H urr i cane 1 K atr i na, t he r oom r at e att he D ays Inn w as $45- 50 perni ght
. A ccor di ng t o M i t es h Pat el , t he D a y s In n m a n a g e r, im m e d iate ly a fte r H u rric a n e K a trin a h it, “th e o w n e rs c a lled m e a n d to ld
m e t o s t ar tchar gi ng t he r ack r at e. ” T he “r ack r at e” w as $90 perni ght
. W hen Sherm an 2
v o ic e d h e r c o n c e rn s a b o u t th is p ra c tic e , P a te l “ to ld h e r w e w e re c h a r g in g o u rr a c k ra te .” P a tel a ss e rte d th a t th e “ ra c k ra te” w a s “ se t a y e a r in a d v a n c e ” a n d th a t “ th e re ’s e lev e n m o tels on t he exi t . T hey’ l l al l t el l you, i f t hey can gett he r ack r at e, t hat ’ s w hateverybody’ s goi ng to g et i s the rac k rate. ” T h ere after, S h erm an v o lun tari ly q u ith er p o sit ion b ec au se “ [t ] h ere
w as a l otgoi ng on t her e t hatI di d nota gr ee w i t h. [ ] . . . [ I ] n m y opi ni on, I w as br eaki ng t he 3 l aw . I w as j us tnott r eat i ng peopl e r i ght [ , ] ” as t he D ays I nn w as engagi ng i n al l eged “ pr i ce-

### Attach ed to S herman ’s no tice of ap peal w as a J une 30, 2006, l et t eropi ni on f r om 4 L i nda C os t on D avi s , Speci al A t t or ney G ener al - Consum erPr ot ect i on D i vi s i on, t o Sher m an a n d M D E S “ re g a rd in g M is s is s ip p i’ s [p ]ric e [g ]o u g in g [s ]ta tu te a t M s . S h e rm a n ’s re q u e s t.” A cc o rdin g to D av is’ s let terop inion , u n d er M issi ssipp i C o d e A n n o tat ed S ec ti o n 7 5 -24 -25 (2): [ o] nce a St at e of

E m er gency i s decl ar ed, t hen pr i ces shal l notexcee d the pr i ces ordi nari l y c h arg ed a t ori m m ediat el y b efor e t he S t at e of E m ergency . Iti s a c o m m o n m isc o n c e p tio n a m o n g s o m e in n k e e p e rs th a t th e y c a n c h a rg e th e ir ra c k ra te d u rin g a S tate o f E m e rg e n c y . T h is is a n in c o rre c t b e lief. T h e sta tu te s t at es they mustcont i nue t o char ge the pr i ce they or di nar i l y char ged i n t he days i m m edi at el y pr ece di ng t he St at e of Em er gency. T he St at e of E m er gency w as decl ar ed on 26 A ugus t2005. The de t erm i ni ng que s t i ons a r e: W hatpr i ce di d t he m ot el /hot el char ge on 25, 24, 23, 22 A ugus t2005? D i d i texce ed the pr i ce a f t er26 A ugus t2005? I f

the ans w ert o the s econd que s t i on i s “Y es ” then pr i ce gougi ng l i kel y occurr ed. 

### 3 g o u g ing
. ” A cc o rdin g to S h e rm a n , “ I’m the o n e tha t’ s d o w n there b rea k ing the law
. I’m d o in g it b e c a u s e . . . th e m a n a g e r, s a id d o it. B u t, it’ s m y n a m e o n th e m fo lio s . N o t h is .” ¶3 . O n O ct ober16, 2 00 5, Sh e r man f i l e d a c l a i m f

oru ne mpl oy mentb e ne f i t s w i t h t he M D E S. O n D ece m ber12, 2005, a cl ai m s exam i nernot i f i ed t he D ays Inn thatSher m an w as e l i g i b l e f o rb e n e f i t s . Th e r e a f

t e r , t h e Da y s I n n a p p e a l e d t h e d e t e r mi n a t i o n o f t h e c l a i ms ex am iner. ¶4 . O n Janua r y 24, 200 6, a t e l e ph on i c he a r i ng w a s he l d b e f or e a n AA O . Fol l ow i ng exami nat i on of

Sher m an and Pat el , t he A A O concl uded: I don’tt hi nk t hatt her e’ s any di s put e of r ecor d as t o w hetherornott hatpr i ces pr i ort o t he hurr i cane ar e notthe s ame pr i ces thatw er e cha r ged f ora r oom a ft e r t h e h u rr ic a n e . Ther e’s no dis put e about

that
. B oth yourt es t i m ony and t he empl oyer ’ s t es t i m ony bot h s t at e thatthati s the ca s e. ( E m phas i s added)
. N onethel es s , the A A O r ever s ed the cl ai m s exami ner . Fol l ow i ng Sher m an’ s s ub sequen tappea l , t he B oar d of R evi ew “adopt ed the Fi ndi ngs of Factand O p in io n o f th e [A A O ] an d a ffirm e d th e d e c isio n .” S h e rm a n a p p e a led to th e c irc u it co u rt. 4T her e i s no i ndi cat i on t hatt hi s l et t erw as cons i der ed by the ci r cui tcour t , as i tw as never

b e fo re th e M D E S , a n d th is C o u rt w ill n o t c o n s id e r i t e ith e r. See Skrm e tta v. Bayv ie w Y ac ht Club, I nc. , 8 0 6 S o . 2 d 1 1 2 0 , 1 1 2 7 (M iss. 2 0 0 2 ). 

### 4 ¶ 5 . O n A u g u s t 2 5 , 2 0 0 6 , t h e c ir c u it c o u r t e n te r e d a n “ O r d e rA f f ir m in g D e c is io n .” S p e c ifica lly , the c irc u it co u rt fo u n d th a t th e B o a rd o f R e v iew ’s d e n ial o f S h e rm a n ’s c laim f oru ne mpl oy mentb e ne f i t s “ i s s up po r t e d by s ub s t a nt i a l e vi de nc e , i s n ota rbi t r ar y or capr i ci ous , comport s w i t h est abl i s hed l aw and thatt he ac t i ons of [ Sher m an] cons t i tut ed vol unt ar i l y l eavi ng empl oym entw i thoutgood cau se. ” S herm an sub sequen t l y f i l ed a “ M ot i on to R e c o n sid e r a n d /o r C lar ify O rd e r” a n d a “ M o tio n to E x p u n g e O rig in a l O rd e r; M o tio n to E nt erO r dert hatC om por t s w i t h t he Fact s and L aw s of thi s C aus e. ” T he m ot i ons w er e deni ed b y th e c irc u it co u rt. F ro m th a t ru lin g p ro c e e d s S h e rm a n ’s a p p e a l. I S S UE ¶6 . T h is C o u rtw il l con side r: ( 1) W hetherSherm an’s r efus al t o engage i n pr i ce- gougi ng f ol l ow i ng H urr i cane K a trin a c o n stitu tes g o o d c a u se fo r v o lu n tar ily lea v in g h e r e m p lo y m e n t. S TANDA RD O F REVI EW ¶7. “I n any j ud i ci al pr ocee di ng under t hi s s ect i on, t he f i ndi ngs of t he B oar d of R evi ew as t o t he f

act s , i f s uppor t ed by e vi dence a nd i n the abs ence of f r aud, s hal l be conc l us i ve, and t he j ur i s di ct i on of

t he courts hal l be conf

i ned t o quest i ons of l aw . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 53 1 (r eenac t ed u nd er 2008 M i ss. H . B . 1, S ect i on 45 ). T his ref l ect s this C ou rt ’s : obl i gat i on of

def er ence t o agenc y i nt erpr et at i on and pr act i ce i n ar eas of admi ni s t r at i on by l aw comm i t t ed t o t hei rr es pons i bi l i t y. T hi s duty of def er ence de ri ves f

r om ourr eal i zat i on t hatt he eve r yday expe r i ence of t he admi ni s t r at i ve age ncy gi ves i tf ami l i ar i t y w i t h t he part i cul ar i t i es and nuanc es of t he pr obl ems comm i t t ed t o i t s car e w hi ch no courtcan hope t o r epl i cat e.

### 5

D u n n v . Miss . D e

p ’t o f He a lth , 708 So. 2d 67, 72 ( M i s s . 1998) ( quot i ng G il l v. Miss. D ep ’t of W ildli f e Conse r vati on , 5 7 4 S o . 2 d 5 8 6 , 5 9 3 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ))
. H o w e v e r, “ w her e an adm i nis tr at i ve agen cy errs as a m at t erof law , cour t

s of com pet ent j ur is di ct i on s hould not hes i tat e t o i nt er vene . ” G r ant Ctr. Hos p. , I nc. v. Heal

th G r oup of

Jacks on, I

nc. , 528 So. 2d 8 0 4 , 8 0 8 (M iss. 1 9 9 8 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). A N A L Y S IS ¶8. “The under l yi ng purpos e of i m pl ement i ng e m pl oym ents ecur i t y l aw i n M i s s i s s i ppi is to p ro te c t th o se w o rk e rs n o t p e rm itt e d to c o n tin u e e m p lo y m e n t th ro u g h n o fa u lt o f th e ir
ow n. ” B ro o m e v . Miss. E m p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 92 1 So . 2d 33 4, 33 7 ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng A ll

en v. Miss. E m

p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 6 3 9 S o . 2 d 9 0 4 , 9 0 6 (M iss. 1 9 9 4 )). A cc o rdin g ly, an indivi du al i s di squ ali fi ed from rec eivin g u n em p loy m en t ben efit s if they “left
w or k vol unt ar i l y w i t houtgood caus e . . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( a) ( r eena ct ed
u n d er 2 0 0 8 M iss. H . B . 1 , S ec ti o n 3 9 ). “T h e b u rde n o f pro o f of g o o d ca u se fo r l ea v ing w o rk
s hal l be on the cl ai m ant. . . . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( c) ( r eena ct ed under2008 M iss. H . B . 1 , S ec ti o n 3 9 ). ¶ 9 . A t th e h e a rin g , th e A A O sta ted , “ I d o n ’t th in k th a t th e re ’s a n y d isp u te o f re c o rd a s to
w hetherornott hatpr i ces pr i ort o t he hurr i cane ar e notthe sa m e pr i ces thatw er e cha r ged f or a ro o m a ft e r t h e h u rr ic a n e s . Ther e’s no dis put e about

that
. ” ( Em ph a s i s a dd e d)
. A s s uch, t he A A O corr ect l y r ecogni zed the pert i nent , undi sput ed f act s . T he A A O t hen det erm i ned t hatSher m an: i ni t i at ed hers epar at i on w hen s he t ender ed herr es i gnat i on. T he cl ai m antf ai l ed t o do al l s he coul d do t o pr ot ectherempl oym entbutchos e t o vol unt ar i l y l eave t hi s e m pl oym ent . T he cl ai m antha s nots how n good caus e w i t hi n t he meani ng

### The r ec ord i s voi d of any cl ai m by Days Inn that the y inc urr ed a dditiona l ope rating 5 

### exp enses. 6 o f t h e l a w f

o rv o l u n t a r i l y l e a v i n g e mp l o y me n t . T h e c l a i ma n th a s n o ts h o wn cont i nued empl oym entw i t h t hi s empl oyerw oul d have be en detr i m ent al t o her health, saf

et y o r m oral s. 

### In s o conc luding, the AAO c orr ec tly st at ed that Mis si ss ippiCodeAnnot at ed Sec ti on 71-5- 513(A) (1) (a) “provi des that an individua l s hal l bedis qual if ie d for ben efits if

he l ef t wor k vo luntarily w itho ut go od cau se .” (Emp h as is ad ded ). Th e AA O erred , ho wev er, in cons ide ring whether

“c ontinued e mploymen t with t his em ploye r woul d havebee n detrime nta l to her

he alth, s af

ety or m ora ls .” Thus, the AAO a ppli ed the wrong law. “ Hea lt h, safety an d mo rals” is a factor to be co nsid ered insituatio ns where ani n d iv idu al wh o is presently receiv ing un emplo yment ben efits fails to “ap plyfo r av ailable su itable w ork. . . , to a cc ept ava il able suit abl e wor

k when of

fe re d him , or

to ret urn to his cus tom ar

y se lf
em ploym ent [, ]” a ft er

being so dire ct ed by the e mpl oyme nt of fi ceor MDES. Mis s. Code Ann. § 71- 5-513(A)( 3)( a) (r eenacted under 2008 Mis s. H.B. 1, Se ction 39) . Suc h was si mply not the s it

uation in theca se sub judic e , a s She rm an wa s a pplying for

unem ploym ent ben efits. ¶10 . M i ssi ssi pp i C od e A nn otat ed S ect i on 75 -24-25(2) pr ov i des: [ w ] heneve r , undert he M i s s i s s i ppi E m er gency M anage m entL aw , Sect i ons 33- 15- 1 t hr ough 33- 15- 49, a s t at e of emer gency ora l ocal emer gency i s decl ar ed t o exi s ti n t hi s s t at e, t hen th e v a lu e re c e ive d fo r a ll g o o d

s a n d se rv ice s s o ld w i thi n the des ignat ed em er gency im pactar ea s hal lnotexc eed the pr i ces or di nar i l y char ged f orcom par abl e goods ors er vi ces i n the m arket ar ea at or i m m edi at el

y bef or e the dec l ar at i on of a s tat e of

em er gency orl ocal em er gency . H ow ever, the va l ue recei ved m ay incl ud e: any exp enses, the co st of t he goods and s ervi ces w hich ar e nec es s ar i l y i ncurr ed i n pr ocur i ng s uch g o o d s a n d s e rv ic e s d u ri n g a s ta te o f e m e rg e n c y o r l o c a l e m e rg e n c y .[ ] 5

### The separat e opini on err s in re fe rring to thi s as a “ne w st andard[ .] ” Thest at utorily- 6 

### ena ct ed s tandard is that of “good c aus e. ” See Miss. C od e Ann. § 7 1 -5 -51 3(A )(1). T his Court m e r e ly a pp l i e s thec or

r e c t l aw t o thepre s e nt

s e t of f a c t s i n re a c hingtheabovere fe re nce d conc lus ion. 7 M is s . C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -2 4 -2 5 (2 ) ( R e v . 2 0 0 2 ) ( e m p h a s is a d d e d ). “A ny per s on w h o k n o w in g ly and w i l l f

ul l y vi ol at es s ubs ect i on (2)[ , ] ” m ay be s ubj ectt o s ubs t ant i al f i ne and/ or im p ri so n m en t. M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 5 -24 -25 (3) & (4) (R ev . 2 0 0 2 ) (em p h asis ad d ed ). T her ef or e, t he A A O , af

f i r m ed by t he B oar d of

R evi ew and ci r cui tcour t , appl i ed the w r ong l aw t o undi s put ed f

act s . In s hort , t her e w as no l egal bas i s f orthe conc l us i on thatSher m an “has nots how n good caus e . . . f orvol unt ar i l y l eavi ng empl oym ent . ” W e f i nd unempl oym entbenef

i tcl ai m ant s s at i s f

y t hei r“burden of

pr oof of good caus e f

orl eavi ng
w or k[ , ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( c) ( r eena ct ed under2008 M i s s . H . B . 1, Sect i on 39) , w hen they vol unt ar i l y l eave empl oym entr atherthan vi ol at e a s t atut e, w hi ch i s a ques t i on of l aw . H er e, Sher m an r ej ect ed i ns t ruct i ons t o comm i tan ac ti n vi ol at i on of M i s s i s s i ppi C o d e A n n o tate d S e c tio n 7 5 -2 4 -2 5 (2 ). G iv e n th e se fa c ts, a n d a p p ly in g th e c o rre c t law , this C our tf i nds t hatt he A A O , t he B oar d of R evi ew , a nd the ci r cui tc our terr ed i n r ej ect i ng t he determ i nati on of the cl ai m s exam i ner that S herm an w as ent i t l ed to une m ploym ent benefi t s. A n empl oyee meet s t he “bur den of pr oof of good c aus e f

orl eavi ng w or k, ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( c) ( r eena ct ed under2008 M i s s . H . B . 1, S ect i on 39), w hen he ors he r ef us es t o e n g a g e i n c o n d u c tt h a ti s i l l e g a l a s a ma t t e ro f l a w. 6 

### ¶11. The is sue in thi s ca se is solved by ans wering the ques ti on of law, and shoul d re quire no furthe r c omm ent . Notwithst anding thenar rowne ss of the i ss ue be for e this Court , the s epar at e o pini onf

a l l s int o thew akeo f

thei na pp l i c abl e , t ang e nti a lvo ya get ake n b y theAA O

### 8

in i ts dec is ion, aswel l a s the b riefs fi le d on appe al , by unne ce ss arily addr es sing “he alth, sa fe ty and morals.”Mis s. Code Ann. § 71-5- 513(A) (3) (a). Foll owing this mi st ake n and il lus ory path, the s eparateopini on off er s an unte nabl e s olution f ra ught wi th uninte nded con sequ ences. ¶12. The separat e opini on advocate s an unnec es sari ly broa d new standard that “ as long as an e mpl oyeehas a re asonable, obje ctiv e be li ef that s he is require d t o enga ge in conduc t t hat pre se nts a ris k to he r he alth, saf ety or mora ls , s he ha s ‘ good ca use ’ voluntari ly t o le aveher em ploym ent under Mis si ss ippi ’s em

ploym ent se curit y law.”(Em

phas is add ed). The advoc ac y of this s tandard i s uncall ed for a s theincr ea se d-rat e ques ti on of l aw i s di spos itive , and the e rrant

“he alth, sa fe ty and moral s”provi si on does not a pply in thi s c as e. ¶13 . Th e app lication of a “belief” stand ard of wh at may be legal or illegal is fraug ht w ith er ror and c onfus ion, and is not nec es sary for the dis posi ti on of thi s c ontrover sy. The e rror in s uch a st andard is appar ent in thi s c as e. Spec if

ic al ly, theDays Inn “bel ie ved”that i t wa s per mi ss ibl e to ra is e rate s. The age ncy, however , is controll ed by what “i s”the law, not what thela w is “be li eved ” to be. A “be li ef ” a s t o le gal it

y cannot bethest andard, tos se d to t he four win ds b y th e wish es andwh ims of emplo yees or emp loy ers alike. L egalityrests with theL e gi s l at

ure t o c r e at e and

c ourt s t o i nt e r

pre t . Fo r

e xampl e , i s g ambl i ngor the con sump tionof alco ho lic bev erages illeg al? It depen ds up onthe county inwh ich o ne liv es. How coul d thi s Cour

t pe rm it re cove ry of un employm ent bene fi ts on thebas is of s uch a transient con cept as th e emplo yee’s o pin ionwh en, as a matter o f law, th ere is no legal b asis in f ac t t o suppor

t t he opinion or

“be li ef ?”

### 9

¶14. More over , appl ic ation of a “be li ef ” or opini on st andard int er wov en into matt er s of moral it y wil l c re at e unt old num ber s of circ ums tance s in whic h nei the r the e mpl oyeeor emplo yer w ill have a definitiv e standardto rely upo n. MD ES easily co uldbe p resentedwith a c as e in thefut

ure involving an employe e voluntari ly l eaving e mpl oyme nt s ole ly on t he bas is of “ ri sk .
. . to hi s . . . moral s[ .] ” Mi ss . CodeAnn. § 71- 5-513(A)( 3)( a) . Suc h vag uen ess may ju stify leg islative reco nsid erationin th e interest o f clarityandfairness to em ploye rs and e mpl oyee s, but a ls o c le arly war

rants avoidanceby thi s Court of int er pre ting a provis ion of

l aw not prope rly be for e us and cr eating a “bel ie f”st andard. For inst anc e, can a s er ver who bel ie ves that t

he c onsum

pti onof a lc ohol i s i mm ora l beentitle d to c oll ec t bene fi ts af

te r voluntari ly qui tting a

job at a re st aurant

whic h did not

se rveal coholwhen the se rve r be ga

n e m pl oym ent , but

now se rve s a lc ohol? Can powe r pl ant em ploye es who conj ure that a co mpany is “immo rally” contributingto glo bal w arming be entitled to vo luntarily quit the ir jobs and coll ec t bene fi ts ? Or what if thousands of s hipyard wor ker s s uddenly dec ide the w ars in Iraqan dA fg h an istan are illeg al andimmoral? W ill the ag encybe requiredto assess wh ether su ch “b eliefs” r equi r e the paymentof unempl oym entbenef

i t s ? For tunat el y, t hi s i s a voyage w e ar e notr equi r ed ori ncl i ned t o t ake a tthi s t i m e. CO NC L US I ON ¶15. B as ed upon t he af or ement i oned analysi s, t he or der of t he C i r cui t C our t of J acks on C ount y af

f i r m i ng t he deci s i on of

the B oar d of

Revi ew i s r ever s ed and j udgm enti s r ender ed grant i ng S herm an u nem ploym ent benefi t s. ¶16. RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D.

### 10

S M I TH, C. J . , W AL LE R, P . J . , EA S LE Y, CARL S ON, DI CKI NS ON AND LAM AR, J J . , CO NCU R. DI AZ , P. J . , CO NCU RS I N RESULT ONLY W I TH S EPA RA TE W RI TTEN OPI NI ON J OI NED BY G RAV ES , J . , AND I N PART BY E A SL E Y , J.
DI AZ , P RE S I DI NG J US TI CE , CONCURR I NG I N RE S UL T ONL Y: ¶17. I m us tfi r s tnot e t hatt he pr i ce gougi ng al l eged i n t hi s cas e i s par t i cul ar l y di s turbi ng in li g h t of th e h o rri fi c afterm ath o f th e w o rstna tural disaster i n U n it ed S tat es h ist o ry. E n ti re h o m es w ere red u ce d to slab s, leav ing the cit izen s o f the G u lf C o ast sc ram b li n g for sh elt er. Fora bus i nes s t o t ake advant age of thes e per s ons f

orpur e f i nanci al ga i n, w hi l e t hey w er e at th e irm o s t v u ln e ra b le , is d e p lo ra b le
. ¶ 1 8 . W ith th is in m in d , th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e p re s e n t c a s e a re , at th e v e ry lea st,
uns et t l i ng, and I w hol ehea r t edl y a gr ee t hatM s . Sherm an has de m ons t r at ed “good ca us e” f or vol unt ar i l y l eavi ng here m pl oym ent . H ow ever , I cannotj oi n t oday’ s opi ni on. Fi r s t , t he new l egal s t andar d announce d i n t oday’ s opi ni on pl ace s t oo heavy of a burde n on t he cl ai m antand one thathas notbeen meti n t hi s cas e. Second, i n contr as tt o t he maj or i t y’ s hol di ng t o t he
c on t r a r y, t he un e mpl oy ments t a t ut e does re q u ir e u s to c o n side r th e risk to th e e m p loy ee ’s “h eal t h, saf

et y, or m oral s. ” T hir d, al t ho ug h the m aj ori t y fai l s t o ad dress M s. S herm an’s
a rg u m e n t th a t sh e h a d “ g o o d c a u se ” to q u it b e c a u se h e r e m p lo y e r e n g a g e d in o th e r m o ra lly qu est i on able behav i or, I f i nd t hat herm oral obj ect i on s al so enti t l e her t o b enefi t s.

I. ¶1 9 . T h e n ew stan d ard an n o u n ce d b y the m ajority req u ir es an em p loy ee to d e m o n stra te ref usal “t o en gag e i n co nd uct that i s i l l egalas a m at t erof l aw ” (e m p h asis su p p li ed ). I nt er es t i ngl y, t hi s i s t he s ame st andar d t hatt he M D E S use d t o ar gue that Sh erm an w as

### 11

notent i t l ed t o benef

i t s . I agr ee w i t h Sher m an’ s r es pons e thatr equi r i ng t he empl oyee t o s how
ac tual w ron g d o ing p lace s too h ea v y o f a b u rde n o n the e m p loy ee , for u n less the S tat e w ere t o s ucce s s f

ul l y convi ctt he empl oyer , t he empl oyee coul d ne verpr ove t hatthe act i vi t y w as in d e e d ille g a l. ¶2 0 . D esp it e the lack o f a crim inal co n v ict ion , o r e v e n a c rim inal ind ict m en t, the C o u rt fin d s th a t th e D a y s In n en g a g e d in c rim in a l ac tiv ity “ a s a m a tter o f la w .” In o th e r w o rd s, th is C our th as det erm i ned thatevery el ementof t he cr i m e of

pr i ce gougi ng has been pr oven b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t, w ith o u t a tria l, an d w ith o u t allo w in g th e D a y s In n a n o p p o rtu n ity t o puton evi dence i n i t s de f ens e. A l l thati s l ef

tf orthi s C our ti s t o i m pos e a s ent ence . Such
a fin d in g is u n e q u iv o c a lly o u tsid e th e ju risd ictio n o f th is C o u rt – th is is a n a p p e llate c o u rt,
n o t o n e o f o ri g in a l ju ri s d ic tio n . W h ite v . S ta te , 1 5 9 M is s . 2 0 7 , 1 3 1 S o . 9 6 (1 9 3 0 ). See a l so M iss . C o n st. A rt. 6 § 1 4 6 (“ T h e S u p re m e C o u rt sh a ll h a v e su c h ju risd ictio n a s p ro p e rly belongs t o a co urtof appe al s and sha l l exerci se no jur i sdi ct i on on m at t ers ot her than t ho se s peci f i cal l y pr ovi ded by thi s Const i tut i on orby gener al l aw . ”) C r i m i nal char ges ar e br ought by t he St at e, t r i ed i n t he appr opr i at e tr i al cour t , i n f r ontof a t ri al judge, w i t h gui l tor in n o c e n c e d e ter m in e d b y th e fin d e r o f fa c t. II. ¶21. T he m aj or i t y spends m uch of i t s opi ni on att empt i ng t o expl ai n how “hea l t h, s af ety and
m or al s ” i s i r r el evantt o f i ndi ng good caus e. T he pr opos ed j us t i f i cat i ons mi sconst rue the “r eas onabl e per s on s t andar d, ” and by r ef us i ng t o a cknow l edge t hatthi s C our thas empl oyed th is s a m e s tan d a rd in p re v io u s u n e m p lo y m e n t ca se s re g a rd in g d e n ial o f b e n e fits, th e m a jo rity
c re a te s a n e w s ta n d a rd
. Ho ern er B ox es, In c. v. Miss. E m p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 693 So.

### 12

2d 1343 ( M i s s . 1997) and Hu ck a b ee v. Miss. E m p loym en t Se c. Co m m ’n , 735 So. 2d 390, 397 ( M i s s . 1999)
. T he maj or i t y s i m pl y co ncludes thatSher m an has demonstr at ed “good
c a u se ” w ith o u t an y d isc u ss io n o f w h a t th e ter m m e a n s, a n d I c a n n o t ac c e p t th is
o v e rs im p lif

ie d a n a ly s is
. ¶ 2 2 . T h o u g h it ap p e a rs th a t t h e m a jo ri ty f in d s o th e rw is e , th e re is s im p ly n o “ p lain
m eani ng” t o the phr as e “good caus e. ” W hen w e ar e f ace d w i t h s uch ambi guous and vague t erm s , t hi s C our tmusta t t empt t o de t erm i ne the l egi s l at i ve i nt entand ca nnotappl y w hat ever interpre tat ion i t w ishe s. B y refusing t o l o o k t o th e en ti re st atute, tod ay ’s ap p roa ch is co n tr ary t o our“cons t i t uti on al m andat e of def er ence t o the Legi s l atur e. ” Cit y of E l lis vil le v. R i char ds on , 9 1 3 S o . 2 d 9 7 3 , 9 8 3 (M iss. 2 0 0 5 ). ¶23. A s w e have r epea t edl y held, w hen t he m eani ng of a s t atut e i s not r eadi l y appar ent fr o m th e te x t, th is C o u rt tu rn s to th e ru le s o f s ta tu to ry in te rp re ta tio n . D a v is v . S ta te , 806 So. 2d 1098, 1101 ( M i s s . 2001)
. “The pr i m ary rul e of cons t ruct i on i s t o as cert ai n t he i nt entof t he l egi s l atur e f

r om t he s t atut e as a w hol e and f r om t he l anguage us ed ther ei n. ” Clark v. S ta te , 3 8 1 S o . 2 d 1 0 4 6 , 1 0 4 8 (M is s . 1 9 8 0 ))
. ¶ 2 4 . M i s s i s s i p p i Co d e S e c t i o n 7 1
- 5
- 5 1 3 d o e s n o td e f i n e “ g o o d c a u s e . ” Ho we v e r , th e s a me s t atut e i ncl udes pr ovi s i ons f ordet erm i ni ng the s ui t abi l i t y of w or k. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( c) and ( A ) ( 3) ( a) ( R ev. 2000)
. T hes e f act or s i ncl ude “the degr ee of r i s k i nvol ved t o [ t he empl oyee’ s ] heal t h, s af ety and mora l s . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 3) ( a)
. T he
su it ab il ity o f av ail ab le w o rk a n d an em p loy ee ’s reaso n s for v o lu n tar il y leav ing h er job are undeni abl y anal ogous . T hus , by l ooki ng ata corr es po nd i ng subs ect i on, w e ca n det erm i ne

### 13

t hat“good ca us e” w oul d i ncl ude thos e s i tuat i ons w her e an em pl oyee vol unt ar i l y l eave s b e c a u s e th e jo b p o s e s a s ig n if ic a n t r is k to h e r “ h e a lth , s a fe ty a n d m o ra ls .” ¶2 5 . O u r so ciety h as d eterm ined w h at is ac ce p table b eh av ior, an d w e h av e set p ara m eters in the form o f crim inal statu tes. C o n d u ct co n tr ary t o law ce rt ainly ca n b e c o n side red co n tr ary t o a per s on’ s m or al s . W i t h t hi s i n m i nd, t he ul t i m at e ques t i on i n thi s cas e i s w hether Sher m an had “ good caus e” t o qui tw hen s he w as as ked t o engage i n be havi orthatpr es ent ed a si gn i fi cant r i sk t o h er m oral s. ¶26 . V ery few j uri sdi ct i on s hav e con si dered t his part i cular i ssue, bu t t he m aj ori t y of these
s t at e s h a ve c on c l ud e d t ha ta n e mpl oy e e ne e d on l y ha ve a r e a s on a bl e b e l i e f tha th e rj ob
re q u ire s c o n d u c t co n tra ry to la w o r m o ra lity in o rd e r to h a v e “g o o d ca u se ” to q u it. See R o d e ri c k D . E v e s , E li

g ibil it y forU n em p loym en t C o m

p en sa ti o n a s A

ff ec ted by C laim a n t’s V ol untar y Separ at i on orR ef

us alt o W

ork Al l egi ng thatthe W ork is I l l egal orI m m or al , 41 A .L .R .5 th 1 2 3 (1 9 9 6 ). ¶27. I n O ’B rien v. E m ploym en t

A pp eal B oa rd , 49 4 N. W . 2d 660 ( I ow a 1993) , an empl oyee vol unt ar i l y l ef

thi s j ob beca us e hi s empl oyerr equi r ed hi m t o engage i n act i vi t i es w hi ch he
con si dered i l l egal and u nethi cal
. T hese act i vit i es i ncluded fr aud ulentsal es, i nternal theft s, a n d v a ri o u s v io la tio n s o f t h e E n v ir o n m e n ta l P ro te c ti o n A g e n c y ’s re g u la tio n s . I d. at661. T he st at e’s E m ploym ent A pp eal B oard r ej ect ed the em ployee’s cl ai m s f or bene fi t s becau se h e h a d n o t p ro v e n th a t h is e m p lo y e rh a d v io la te d th e la w . I d. a t6 6 2 . Th e I o wa S u p r e me C o u rt h e ld th a t th e p ro p e r in q u iry w a s “ w h e th e r a p e rso n o f re a so n a b le p ru d e n c e w o u ld bel i eve, undert he ci r cumst ance s f ace d by [ t he empl oyee] , thati m pr operori l l egal act i vi t i es
w er e occurr i ng at[ t he w or kpl ace ] t hatnece s s i t at ed hi s qui t t i ng. ” I d. T he courtr ever s ed and

### 14

r emanded t he ca s e w i t h di r ect i ons t o m ake f i ndi ngs of

f actus i ng t he pr operl egal s t andar d. I d. ¶28. I n P as car el

liv. U nem ploym ent

A ppeal s Com m is s i on , 6 6 4 S o . 2 d 1 0 8 9 (F la. 5 th D ist. A pp . 19 95 ), a truck dri ver r efused t o d ri ve a w i de-l oad on a part i cularhighw ay d uri ng rush h o u r b e lie v in g th a t th e c o n d u c t w a s ille g a l. I d. at1090. A l t hough t he empl oyert es t i f i ed that t he ac t i vi t y w as perm i t t ed, the c our thel d t hat“the di s pos i t i ve ques t i on i s w hetheri tw as unr eas onabl e f

or[ t he empl oyee] t o r ef us e t o m ake the t r i p even t hough i tactual l y m ay have been l egal t o do s o. ” I d. a t1093. T he cour tf ound thati tw as notunr eas on able f or t he
e m p lo y e e to c o n c lu d e th a t h is ro u te w a s illeg a l, an d th e re fo re , h e w a s e n tit led to
u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fi ts . I d. ¶29. I n T

om T ob in W h oles ale v. U

nem ploym ent

Com pens ati on B oar d of

R eview , 600 A . 2 d 6 8 0 (P a. C m m w . 1 9 9 1 ), a c o m p u ter an alys t qu it h is jo b a fte r h e w as a sk ed to alter a
com pu t er program for i l l egal pu rposes. T he cou rtfoun d thatt he em ployee h ad g oo d cau se to q u it e v e n th o u g h n o ille g a l a c tiv ity h a d ta k e n p la c e . I d. at682. T he courthel d t hat“the actual per f

or m ance of

t he ac ti s notr equi r ed f oran em ploye e t o s everthe empl oym ent
re l at i ons hi p. ” I

d. ( ci t i ng Zinm an v. U nem pl . Com pen. B d. of

R ev. , 3 05 A. 2d 3 80 ( Pa. C m m w . 1973) )
. T he opi ni on w enton t o s ay that“[ i ] f C l ai m anthad a r eas onabl e bel i ef t hat h e w as p arti cipa ti n g in an il lega l acti v ity o r i f his p erso n al an d p rofe ss io n a l integ ri ty w ere so jeo p a rd ize d b y th e c irc u m sta n c e s, th e re c a n b e a n e c e ss ito u s a n d c o m p e lli n g c a u se to t erm i nat e hi s empl oym ent . ” I d. at683 ( ci t i ng R i chnerv. U nem pl . Compen. B d. of

R ev. , 505 A . 2 d 1 3 7 5 (P a. C m m w . 1 9 8 6 )).

### 15

¶ 3 0 . T h e S u p re m e C o u rt o f K e n tu c k y a ls o fo u n d th a t a n o b jec tiv e b e lief in th e ill e g a lity of the conducts at i s f

i es the r equi r ementof

“ goo d cau se. ” In Co b b v. K in gKw ikMin it Market , I nc. , 675 S. W . 2d 386 ( K y. 1984) , the empl oyee vol unt ar i l y l ef thi s j ob a f

t erhe w as a s k e d to im p le m e n t a “ fa s t c a s h ” g a m e to p ro m o te s a le s . I d. a t3 87 . The e mpl oyee w as advi s ed by the s t at e’ s A l cohol i c B ever age C ontr ol of f i ce t hatthe game w oul d be i l l egal , but th e e m p lo y e r a s s u re d h im th a t th e s to re c o u ld p a rt ic ip a te le g a lly in th e g a m e . I d. at387- 88. T he courtf

ound t hatb ecause “t he cl ai m ant s obeyed w hatt hey per cei ved t o be a l aw f ul
c o m m a n d b y a s ta te a g e n c y ,” th e y w e re e n title d to u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fi ts . I d. a t388. T he
c o u rt a lso n o te d , “ [i] t is fu n d a m e n tally u n so u n d to h o ld th a t th e o rd in a ry c iti z e n e lec ts to fo llo w th e d ir e c tiv e s o f a sta te a g e n c y a t h is o w n risk a n d fo rfe its sta tu to ry rig h ts to
u n em p loy m en t ben efit s if the a cts i n q u esti o n are n o t sub seq u en tl y fou n d il leg al by co u rt
or der
. ” I d. a t 3 8 9 . ¶31. A s t he above ca s es dem on st rat e, t he gener al rul e i s t hatas l ong as an empl oyee ha s a r eas onabl e bel i ef

t hatshe i s re qui r ed t o engage i n conductt hati s i l l egal ori m m or al , s he has

“ g o o d c a u s e ” to le a v e h e r e m p lo y m e n t v o lu n ta ri ly
. A ccord Munger v. I ndus. Com m ’n of U tah , 716 P. 2d 808, 809- 10 ( U t ah 1986) (“A n empl oyee c an es t abl i s h good caus e f or qu i t t i ng i f the co nd i t i on s w hich cause him or her t o q uitar e ‘ caused by external pr essur e so compel l i ng t hata r eas onabl y prudentper s on, exer ci s i ng or di nary comm on sens e and prudence , w oul d be j us t i f i ed i n qui t t i ng. ’ ” ( quot i ng D en b y v. B d . o f R ev . O f In d u s. Co m m ’n , 5 6 7 P . 2 d 6 2 6 , 6 3 0 (U tah 1 9 7 7 )); Y o u n gv. S c o tt , 442 S. E . 2d 768, 770 ( G a. Ct . A pp. 1994) ( not i ng t hatt he G eor gi a D epart m entof L abo r r egul at i ons r equi r e a “ r eas onabl e per s on” stan d ard to v o lun tary res ign ati o n s); T aylorv. O hi o U

nem pl . Com pen. B d. of

R ev. , 601

### One court has gones o f ar a s to say th at w h e n a n e m p lo y e r v io late s la w s re late d to 7 t he publ i c s af

ety, an empl oyee ha s good caus e pers e to q u it a t a n y t im e . P ar nel l v. R i ver B end Car r iers, I

nc. , 4 8 4 N .W .2 d 4 4 2 , 4 4 5 (M in n . C t. A p p . 1 9 9 2 ). 

### Both c as es menti on theide a of “c onstruc tive dis charge ,”that i s, “ when theem

ploye r 8 

### has ma de c onditions so intol erabl e that theem ploye e f ee ls com pel le d to res ign. ” Hoer

ner , 693 So. 2d at 1347 ( ci ting Bu lloch v. City o f Pa scagou la , 57 4 S o. 2 d 6 37 , 64 0 (M iss. 19 90 )). A d iscussio n o f con structiv e disch arge is unn ecessary. Th e p rimary inquirysho uld be whe the r the e mpl oyeere as onably bel ie ved that shewas as ked t o eng age in ill ega l or immoral activ ity
. See 8 JudgeLes li e H. Southwi ck, Encyc lope dia of Mi ss is sippi Law (Jeffrey Jack sonandMaryMiller ed s.) § 7 4:4 1 (2 00 1) (“Wheth er someo ne left v oluntarily 16 N . E . 2d 670, 671 ( O hi o C t . A pp. 1991) ( def i ni ng “j us tcaus e” a s “conduc tw hi ch a pe r s on of
o rdin ary intell igen ce w o u ld co n side r t o b e a j ust if iable re aso n for term inating em p loy m en t”); Zinm an , 605 A . 2d at382 ( “The em pl oyee w ho vol unt ar i l y t erm i nat es hi s empl oym entm ay ca rry h is bu rde n o f pro v ing ca u se b y d em o n str a tin g co n d u ct co m p o rt ing w ith o rdin ary comm on s ens e and prudence
. ” ( ci t i ng R osell U n em ploym en t

C ompen . Case , 135 A . 2d 769 (P a. S u p er. C t. 1 9 5 7 )))
. 7 ¶3 2 . T h ese ca ses are co n sist en t w ith this C o u rt ’s u se o f the “re aso n ab le p erso n ” stan d ard i n e m pl oym ents ecur i t y c as es . Forexampl e, i n Hoer nerB oxes , 6 9 3 S o . 2 d 1 3 4 3 , this C o u rt f ound t hatan empl oyee w as ent i t l ed t o empl oym entbenef i t s w hen s he vol unt ar i l y l ef ther
e m p lo y m en t d u e to rep ea ted se x u al ha rassm en t. T h is C o u rthe ld th at “i f an e m p loy e e is
s exual l y har as s ed t o such a de gr ee thatan o rd in a ry p ru d e n t empl oyee w oul d l eave the r anks of t he empl oyed f

ort he unempl oyed, t hen the em pl oyee s houl d notbe deni ed unempl oym ent compensa t i on be nef

i t s . ” I d. at1348 ( emph as i s suppl i ed)
. S i m i l ar l y, i n Huckabee , 735 So. 2d at397 (M i s s . 1999), t he C our thel d t hat“an e m pl oyee w ho l eave s w or k undert he bel i ef th a t sh e h a s b e e n f

ir e d h a s n o t v o lu n tar ily ter m in a ted h e r e m p lo y m e n t w h e re th a t b e lief is
re a so n a b le u n d er the circu m stan ce s” (e m p h asis su p p li ed ). 8

### with good caus e or was cons tr

uctive ly di sc harged, may under unem ploym ent com pens ation law not m akemuch dif

fe re nce . Eithe r cate gory of depart urewillquali fy a

for me r e mpl oyee for bene fi ts .” ). 17 ¶33 . F or t hese reas on s, rather t han sayi ng t hat S herm an has dem on strat ed go od cause j ust beca us e thi s C our ts ays s o, I w oul d adoptthe posi t i on t aken by ot herst at es – as l ong as an empl oyee has a r eas onabl e, obj ect i ve bel i ef t hats he i s r equi r ed t o engage i n conductt hat pr es ent s a r i s k t o herheal t h, saf ety, or m or al s , she has “good caus e” t o l eave herempl oym ent
v o lu n tar ily u n d e r M iss iss ip p i’s e m p lo y m e n t se c u rity law
. F ro m a p u b lic p o licy sta n d p o in t, t hi s s t andar d w oul d pr ot ectt hos e w ho r ef us e t o engage i n i l l egal act i vi t y. R equi r i ng t he empl oyee t o s how actual w r ongdoi ng, as the maj or i t y hol ds , pl ace s t oo heavy a bur den on t he empl oyee. O f

cour s e, i f

t he empl oyee ha s been c onvi ct ed of a cr i m e, t hi s w oul d be a f act ori n det erm i ni ng w hethert he empl oyee ha d a re as onabl e bel i ef
. H ow ever , i ts houl d not be a pr er equi s i t e t o demonstr at i ng good caus e. ¶3 4. T hi s s t a nd a r d do e s no t , a s t he maj or i t y s ug ge s t s , mand a t e a f i nd i ng i n f

avor of t he cl ai m antw hen ther e i s no factual bas i s t o s uppor tthe empl oyee’ s obj ect i ve bel i ef thats he is fa c in g a g re a t ri sk to h e r m o ra ls. T h e m a jo rity ’s a b su rd e x a m p les w o u ld n o t w ith sta n d th is obj ect i ve ana l ys i s . Fur t herm or e, t he m aj ori t y f i nds t he w or d “mora l s ” vague , buti ti s no
m o re v a g u e a ter m th a n “g o o d ca u se .” B y as se rtin g this , th e m a jo rity co n c e d e s th a t itw ill notappl y t he s t atut or y l anguage of Sec t i on 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 3) ( a)
. T he r ef us al t o r ecogni ze a nd appl y thi s s ubs ect i on i s di r ect l y c ont r ary t o t he “s t r i ctcons t ruct i oni s t ” vi ew s t o w hi ch many
m ember s of

t he maj or i t y purpor tt o adher e. III .

### 18

¶3 5. R egar di ng t he mer i t s of She r man’ s c l a i m, I a gr e e tha ts he ha s de mons t r a t e d good
caus e f orl eavi ng heremp l oym ent , butnotf orthe s ame r eas ons . U nderthe pl ai n w or di ng of t he pr i ce- gougi ng s t atut e, Sher m an w as j us t i f i ed i n be l i evi ng thatdoubl i ng pr i ces af t ert he hu rr i cane w as i n v i olat i on of this st atute and t hat she co uld face cri m i nal charges. B ecause herbel i ef

w as r eas onabl e, and notbeca us e the D ays Inn broke t he l aw , Sher m an mether

“ b u rd e n o f p ro o f o f g o o d c a u se fo r le a v in g w o rk ,” b y d e m o n stra tin g th a t sh e w a s fa c e d w ith a sig n if ican t “ri sk to [he r] . . . m o rals. ” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -5-5 1 3 (A )(1)(c) (R ev . 2 0 0 0 ). ¶ 3 6 . S h e rm a n h a s a rg u e d tha t sh e als o w a s re q u ire d to e n g a g e in o th e r im m o ra l co n d u c t, but , as s t at ed bef

or e, t he maj or i t y i gnor es t hi s i s s ue. Speci f i cal l y, Sher m an w as conce r ned t hatt he mot el w as doubl e- r ent i ng i t s r oom s , r ef us i ng t o honorRed C r os s vouc her s , r ef us i ng t o acc eptcr edi tcar ds , and r ent i ng r oom s thatw er e unsui t able f orhabi t at i on. Sher m an
n o tif ie d h e r s u p e rv is o r a b o u t th e s e c o n c e rn s a s w e ll, b u t to n o a v a il. ¶37. M D E S ar gues t hat Sher m an’ s “ethi cal conce r n w as t hat she m ay be l yi ng; and her t es t i m ony di d noti ndi cat e enga gementi n act i vi t i es tr adi t i onal l y cons i der ed i m m or al , s uch
as a ct i vi t i es i nvol vi ng drugs , s ex, a l cohol , ormi nor s . ” Thi s a r gum enti s absurd. S herm an
r es ponds by poi nt i ng t o one of the ol des tand mostr ef er ence d s our ces f

orm or al gui dance – t he Ten C om m andment s , w hic h pr ohi bi t“bea r [ i ng] f al s e w i tnes s . ” Exodus 20: 16 and D e u ter o n o m y 5 :2 0 . A s o n e c o u rt p u t it , “[t]o lie is d ish o n e st, im m o ra l an d u n e th ica l b y a ll sta n d a rd s k n o w n to th is c o u rt . . . . It sh o u ld n o t b e th e p u rp o se o f th e la w to re q u ire p e o p le t o l i e t o m ai nt ai n a l i vi ng. ” W h i pk ey v. O h i o B u reau of E m ploym en t

S ervs. , 635 N . E . 2d 88, 91 ( O hi o M i s c. 1994). I agr ee thatl yi ng t o cus t om er s , es peci al l y t o t hos e made hom el es s by

### 19

a n a tu ra l d isa ste r, is im m o ra l c o n d u c t, an d S h e rm a n h a s d e m o n stra ted th a t sh e is e n tit led to b e n e fits o n th is b a sis a s w e ll. G R A V E S , J. , JO IN S T H IS O P IN IO N . E A S L E Y , J. , JO IN S T H IS O P IN IO N IN PART.