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 1 8 4 3 - CO A T AMM Y S E AG O 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 PL O Y M EN T SE C U R I TY A N D TH R EE S. EN TE RP RI S ES , I NC. APP ELLEE S

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 09/24/2013 TRI AL JUDG E: HON . DAV I D H. S TRONG J R. CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: P I KE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: TAM M Y SEA GO ( PRO SE) ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLEES : ALB ERT B. W HI TE L E ANNE F RA NKL IN B RA DY NA TUR E OF THE C ASE: CI VI L - OTH ER TRI AL C OU RT D I SP OSI TI ON : DEN I ED U NEM PLOY M ENT B ENEFI TS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D – 03/ 03/2015 M OT I ON F ORRE HE AR ING 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 M A X W E L L , JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. T he saw m i l l w her e T amm y S eago w orked di s charged herf ori ns ubor di nat i on. T he cit ed d efian ce w a s h e r r e fu sa l t o sw ee p h er w o rk a rea , a v iolati o n o f th e e m p loy er’s w o rk p o licy . T a m m y so u g h t u n e m p lo y m e n t b e n e fits, cla im in g sh e d idn o t ha v e ab ro o m a n dd id
no tr e f us e t o s w e e p. Butthe M i s s i s s ipp i D e partmentof Em pl oy mentSe c ur i ty ( M D ES) B o a rdo f R e v iew fo u n dth e e m p lo y e r’s tes tim o n y m o re c re d ib le th a n h e rs. B a se do n its fi nd i ng that T am m y’s ref usal t o cl ean w as m i scond uct, the B oard de nied ben efi t s. B ecause cr edibi l i ty det erm i nat i ons ar e w i thi n the B oar d’ s author i ty and s ubs t ant i alevi denceT amm y’ s empl oyert es t i f i ed Tam m y had bee n empl oyed atThr ee S. , I nc. , f orei ght 1 y e a rs . T a m m y te s tif

ie ds h e h a dw o rk e dth e re fo r t e n y e a rs . 2 s up p o rt e dits d e c is io n , w e a ff irm . F act s and P roce duralH i s t ory ¶ 2 . T a m m y w a s e m p lo y e db y T h re e S . E n terp rise s, In c . (“ T h re e S ., In c .”), as asa w m ill
s ort erf ors ever al ye ar s unt i l he rt erm i nat i on on M ar ch 14, 2013. T he cl ai m s exami nerover

1 her un em p loy m en t- b en efit s cl ai m foundshe w as di squali fi ed fr om recei ving ben efi t s becau se sh e w a s d isc h a rg e dfo r m isc o n du c t. ¶3 . T a m m y a p p e a led to th e a d m in istra tiv e law jud g e (A L J), w h o h eld a tel e p h o n ic h ea ri n g . B o th T am m y an dT h ree S . , In c . ’s pre side n t, D . G . S ea g o
— w h o is T am m y ’s
u n cle— test if

ied du ri n g th e h ea ri n g . T am m y clai m edshe did n o t refu se to sw ee p h er w o rk
a re a . A s T a m m y p u t it , sh e d idn o t h a v e asu itab le b ro o m . T h o u g h sh e c laim e da ll av a ilab le br oom s had br oken handl es , D . G . t es t i f i ed ther e w as a s ui t abl e br oom w i thi n t en f eetof T amm y w hen s he w as t ol d t o s w eep he rar ea. B uts he j us ts i m pl y ref used t o sw eep her
w o rkp la c e , s o h e te rm in a te dh e r. ¶4. D . G . al s o t es t i f

i ed T amm y had r ef

us ed t o cl ean her w ork ar ea thr ee days earl i erand sh e h a db e e n ins ub o rd in a te in the p a st. A c c o rd in g to D .G ., th e c o m p a n y m a n u a l— w h ich is pos t ed i n the r oom w her e al l empl oyees cl ock i n and outdaily— emphasi zes thatan empl oyee’ s r ef

us alt o per f

orm an a s s i gned w ork t as k c an r es ul ti n di s charge. T he A L Jf ound D . G . ’s tes t i m ony m or e cr edibl e than Tam m y’ s . T he A L Jal s o det erm i ned Tam m y w as dis chargedfori nsub ordi nati on
— m i scond uct s uff i ci ent t o d eny un em ploym ent benefi t s.S in c e T a m m y fa iledto c ite a n y au th o rity , this c o u rt is u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to 2 c o n s id e r th e m e ri ts o f h e r a rg u m e n t. Bis h o p v . M DES , 1 4 5 S o . 3 d1 2 5 4 , 1 2 5 5 (¶ 4 ) (M iss . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 4 ). 3 ¶5. T amm y appea l ed t o the B oar d of R evi ew . T he B oar d adopt ed the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs of fa c t an do p in io n a n da ffirm e dth e d e n ial o f b e n e fits. T a m m y th e n ap p e a led to th e c irc u it
c o u rt , w h ic h a ls o a ff

irm e d . T a m m y n o w ap p e a ls to th is c o u rt .

D i s cus s i on ¶6 . I n re vi ew i ng the deci s i on of the M D E S, the B oar d’ s f i nd i ng s of

f a c t s s ha l l be conclus i ve i f

, abs entf r aud, they ar e s upport ed by the evi den ce, and the j ur i s di ct i on of the
co u rtsh allb e c o n fi n ed to qu esti o n s o f l aw . M iss. C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -5-5 3 1 (R ev . 2 0 1 1 ).

“ [W ]h e re th e re is s ub sta n tial e v id e n c e , this C o u rt h a s n o au th o rityto re v e rse th e c irc u it
c o u rt ’s a ff

irm a n c e ” o f th e B o a rd ’s d e c is io n . B r oom e v. M ESC , 921 So. 2d 334, 337 (¶12) ( M i s s . 2006) ( quot i ng R i chards on v. M ESC , 593 So. 2d 31, 34 ( M i s s . 1992 )) . S i nce the B oar d’ s f

actualf i ndi ngs ar e conc l us i ve i f s upport ed by s ubs t ant i alevi dence and ar e w i thout f r aud, w e w i l l not“r ew ei gh the fact s of the cas e ori ns ert[ our ] j udgm entf orthatof

the agenc y. ” Id . ¶7. T amm y cl ai m s she w as w r ongl y deni ed benef i t s , butshe nei therspel l s outw hy nor ci t es any s upport i ng author i ty. B utM i s s i s s ippi ’ s s t atut ory l aw i s cl ear
— cl ai m ant s s hal lbe 2 d isq u a lifiedfro m re c e iv in g b e n e fits if th e y are “d isc h a rg e dfo r m isc o n du c t co n n e c ted w ith
w ork[ . ] ” M i s s. C od e A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( b) ( Supp. 2014) . I n m i s conductcas es , the
e m p lo y e r b e a rs th e b u rd e n o f p ro o f. M iss . C o d e A n n . § 7 1 -5 -5 1 3 (A )(1 )(c ). M isc o n du c t is4

“conduc tevi nci ng s uch w i l l f ul and w ant on di s r egar d of the empl oyer ’ s i nt er es tas i s f ound i n de l i ber at e vi ol at i ons ordi s r egar d of s t andar ds of

be havi orw hi ch the empl oyer has the ri gh tt o expec tf

r om hi s empl oyee. ” B r o o me , 921 So. 2d at338 ( ¶14) ( quot i ng W he e le rv. A rr io la , 408 So. 2d 1381, 1383 ( M i s s . 1982)) . M i sconduc ti s al s o “car el es s nes s and
ne gl i ge nc e o f

s uc h de gr e e , o rr e c urr e nc e the r e of , a s t o mani f

e s tc ulpabi l i ty. ” I

d. T h is i ncludes acti ons evi denci ng “w r ongf uli nt entorevi ldes i gn, and s how i ng an int ent i onalor s ubs t ant i aldi s r egar d of the empl oyer ’ s i nt er es torof the em pl oyee’ s dut i es and obl i gat i ons t o hi s empl oyer [ . ] ” Id . ¶8. T amm y w as t erm i nat ed f ori ns ubor di nat i on forre f us i ng t o s w eep he rw ork ar ea w hen herbos s or der ed hert o do s o. H erbos s r eca l l ed a s i m i l arr ef us alatthe s aw m i l lthr ee days b e fo re sh e w a s te rm in a ted . A c c o rd in g to th e co m p a n y ’s p o licy m a n u a l, i n su b o rd in a tio n is gr ounds fort erm i nat i on. W e f i nd i tw as the B oar d’ s pr er ogat i ve t o bel i eve D . G . ’ s t es t i m ony o v e r T a m m y ’s in fi n d in g th e c o m p a n y p ro v e dm is c o n du c t. Se e Hun te rv . M DES , 120 So. 3d 435, 43 8 (¶1 0) ( M i s s . Ct . A pp . 20 13 ) ( no t i ng thatthe Boar d r e s ol ve s c on f l i c t i ng t es t i m ony) . B ecaus e s ubs t ant i alevi dence s upport s the B oar d’ s de ni alof be nef i t s bas ed on T a m m y ’s in s ub o rd in a tio n , w e a ff irm . ¶ 9 . T H E JU D G M E N T O F TH E PIK E C O U N T Y C IR C U IT C O U R T IS A F F I R M E D . LE E, C . J. , I R V I N G A N D G R I FFIS, P. JJ . , BA R N ES, I SH EE , R O B E R T S, C A R L T O N A N D F A IR , J J . , C O N C U R . JA M E S , J. , C O N C U R S IN P A R T A N D IN THE RE S UL T W I THOUT S EP ARAT E W RI TT EN OP I NI ON.