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 4 - CC - 0 0 5 1 5 - CO A J AM ES HEM PHI LL 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 AND DELTA DI S T RI B UT I NG CO M P AN Y O F GR E E NWOOD APP ELLEE S

D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 03/20/2014 T RI AL JUDGE : HON. M AR GAR E T CA RE Y- M CC RA Y CO UR T F RO M W HI CH AP P E AL E D: LE F LORE COUNTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EY FO R A PP ELLAN T: J AM ES HEM PHI LL ( 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 - 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 D EN I A L O F BE N EFI TS D I SPO SI T I O N : A FFIRM E D - 12/ 16/2014 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 I R V I N G , P . J. , R O B E R T S A N D M A X W E L L , JJ. M AXW ELL, J . , FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1. J ames H emphi l l ’ s empl oyer di s char ged hi m f or havi ng thr ee cons ecut i ve ab sence s
w i tho utg i vi ng n ot i c e in vi ol a t i ono f the e mpl oy e r ’ s work po l i c y. H e mphi l l s ought unempl oymen tbe ne f

i t s , c l a i mi ng he di d g i ve no t i c e . Butthe M i s s i s s i pp i D e partmentof E m p loy m en t S e c u rity (M D E S ) B o ardo f R ev iew fou n dthe e m p loy er’s testi m o n y m o re
c re d ib le, a n db a se do n its fin d in g th a t H e m p h ill ’s f a ilure to g iv e n o tice w a s m isc o n du c t, i t d e n ied b e n e fits. B e c au se it w a s w ith inth e B o a rd ’s a u th o rityto m a k e th is c re d ib ili ty d e te rm in a tio n , w e a ff

irm .2 F act s and P roce duralH i s t ory ¶2. H emphi l l w as empl oyed by D el t a D i s tr i but i ng C om pany of G r eenw ood as a l oad er f r om A ugus t18, 2010, t o M ay 8, 2013. D el t a’ s att endanc e pol i cy r equi r ed empl oyees t o be d isc h a rg e dif th e y fa il t o sh o w u p o r c a ll in to w o rkfo r th re e c o n se c u tiv e d a y s. A ll
e m p lo y e e s a re in fo rm e do f th is p o lic y w h e n h ir e d
. ¶3. H emphi l l w as i ncarcerat ed fr om M ay 3 t o M ay 9. B ecaus e H emphi l l had thr ee
c o n s e c u tiv e ab s e n c e s w ith o u t n o tif ic a tio n , D e ltad is c h a rg e dh im o n M a y 8 , 2 0 1 3
. ¶4. H emphi l l then f i l ed f orune m pl oym entbenefi t s. A cl ai m s exam i ner i nt ervi ew ed H emphi l l and J ames H ar gr ove, the ow nerand vi ce pr es i dentof D el t a. T he cl ai m s exami ner det erm i ned H emphi l lw a s di s qual i f i ed f r om r ece i vi ng benef

i t s becaus e he w as di s char ged f or
m is c o n du c t c o n n e c te dw ith w o rk
. ¶ 5 . H e m p h illap p e a led to th e a d m in is tr a tiv e la w ju d g e (A L J), w h o h e lda tele p h o n ic h e a rin g . B o th H em p h il l and H arg rov e testi fi ed
. H em p h il l cl aim ed h e d id co n tact his
e m p lo y e r w h ile h e w a s ja iled . B u t H a rg ro v e tes tifiedth a t H e m p h illd idn o t co n tac t D e lta unt i l af t erhe w as r el eas ed f

r om j ai l and hi s pos i t i on had alr eady be en f i l l ed. T he A L Jf

ound H a rg ro v e ’s te stim o n y m o re c re d ib le a n dd e term in e dH e m p h illfaile dto c o n tac t D e lta w h ile i n j ai l
. T he A L Jal s o bel i eved H ar gr ove’ s t es t i m ony thatD el t a’ s thr ee- day no cal l /no s how pol i cy w as des i gn ed t o prot ectthe company’ s ef f i ci ency i nt er es t s and thatthe pol i cy had be e n c on s i s t e nc y e nf

or c e d wi th o the re mpl oy e e s i n the pa s t . Thus , the A LJde t e rmi ned H e m p h ill w a s d is c h a rg e dfo r m is c o n du c t. ¶6. H emphi l l appea l ed t o the B oar d of R evi ew , w hi ch adopt ed the A L J ’ s f i ndi ngs of

f actW e not e thatH emphi l l ’ s f ai l ur e t o ci t e autho ri ty op erat es as a pr ocedur albar , and 1 th is c o u rtis u n d e r n o o b lig a tio n to c o n s id e r th e m e ri ts . Bis h o p v . M DES , 145 So. 3d 1254, 1 2 5 5 (¶ 4 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 4 ). 3 a n do p in io n a n da ffirm e dth e d e n ial o f b e n e fits. H e m p h illth e n ap p e a led to th e c irc u it co u rt,
w h ic h a ls o a ff

irm e d . H e m p h ill n o w ap p e a ls to th is c o u rt . D i s cus s i on ¶7. I n r evi ew i ng a deci s i on of the M D E S, “the f i ndi ngs of the B oar d of R evi ew as t o the f act s , i f s upport ed by evi dence and i n the abs ence of f r aud, s hal l be conc l usi ve, and the j ur i s di ct i on of

the courts hal l be conf

i ned t o questi ons of l aw . ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 531 (R ev. 20 11 ). “[ W ] here there i s subst anti al evi den ce, this C ou rthas no authori ty to r everse the ci r cui tcourt ’ s af

f i rm ance of

the dec i s i on of the B oar d of R evi ew . ” 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) )
. “T he [ B ] oar d’ s f i ndi ngs of

f actar e conc l us i ve i f

s upport ed by s ubs t ant i al evi dence and w i thoutf

r aud. ” Id
. S o w e w il l no t “rew eigh the fa cts o f th e c ase o r i n sert [ o u r] j udgm entf

orthatof the age ncy. ” Id
. ¶8. H emphi l l cl ai m s he w as w r ongl y deni ed benef i t s , al though he does not s peci f y w hy
o r c ite a n y au th o rity
. A n in d iv idu a l sh a ll b e q u a lifiedfro m re c e iv in g b e n e fits if h e is 1 “di s char ged f

orm i s conductconnec t ed w i th w ork[
. ] ” M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( b) ( Supp. 2014)
. T he empl oyerbear s the bur den t o pr ove mi s conduct
. M i s s . C ode A nn. § 71- 5- 513( A ) ( 1) ( c)
. M i s conductis “conductevi 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 del i ber at e vi ol at i ons or di s r egar d of s t andar ds of be havi or4

w hi ch the empl oyerhas the r i ghtt o expec tf r om hi s empl oyee. ” B r o o me , 921 So. 2d at338 ( ¶14) ( quot i ng W

h e e lerv . A rr io la , 40 8 S o. 2d1 38 1, 1 38 3 (M i ss. 1 98 2))
. M i scond uct i s al so “car el es s nes s and neg l i gen ce of such d egree, or r ecurr ence thereof , as t o m anif

estculpabi l i ty,
w r ongf ul i nt entorevi l des i gn, and s how i ng an i nt ent i onalo r subst anti aldi s r egar d of the empl oyer ’ s i nt er es torof the empl oy ee’ s dut i es and obl i gat i ons t o hi s empl oyer [
. ] ” Id
.

“ [M ]i sc o n du c t im p o rts c o n du c t th a t re a s o n ab le a n dfa ir m in d e de x tern a l o b se rv e rs w o u ld
c o n s id e r aw a n to n d is re g a rd o f th e e m p lo y e r’ s le g itim a te in te re s ts .” Id
. ( quot i ng M ESCv. P hi ll i ps , 5 6 2 S o . 2 d1 1 5 , 1 1 8 (M is s . 1 9 9 0 ))
. ¶9
. T h e M iss iss ipp i S up rem e C o u rtha s he ld th at an em p loy ee ’s f ailu re to n o tify h is empl oyerof

the r eas on forhi s abse nces “can cons t i tut e m i s conduct [ ] i f ther e i s a pol i cy that
r equi r es s uch not i ce. ” B arnettv. M ESC , 583 So. 2d 193, 196 ( M i s s . 1991)
. A nd an empl oyee can be “di s qual i f i ed f r om r ece i vi ng unempl oym entbenef i t s w her e the empl oyee vi ol at ed an e m pl oyer ’ s pol i cy orotherw i se fa i l ed t o m eeta r equi r ed condi t i on of empl oym ent . ” Hun te rv . M DES , 1 2 0 S o . 3 d4 3 5 , 4 3 8 (¶ 8 ) ( M is s . C t. A p p . 2 0 1 3 ). ¶10
. D el t a had a po l i cy thatrequi red i t s em ployees to give n oti ce if they w ere go i ng t o m i ss
w ork. I f an em pl oyee f

ai l s t o cal l i n ors how up f orthr ee c ons ecuti ve days , D el t a’ s pol i cy
m a n d a tes term in a tio n . U lti m a tely , th e B o a rdo f R e v iew , ad o p tin g th e A L J’s fin d in g s o f fa c t, b eli ev ed H arg rov e’s testi m o n y ab o u t H em p h il l’ s failu re to g ive n o ti ce . A n ditw as th e B o ard
o f R e v ie w ’s jo b to m a k e s u c h c re d ib ility c a lls
. See id
. at( ¶10) ( w her e the B oar d of R evi ew is prese n ted w ithco n fl ict ing test im o n y , itm u st de term ine w h ich testi m o n y i s m o re c red ible). A f t err evi ew , w e f

i nd s ubs t ant i alevi dence s upport s the B oard o f R evi ew ’ s det erm i nat i on5

thatH emphi l l comm i tt ed mi s conductby vi ol at i ng D el t a’ s thr ee- day no c al l /no s how pol i cy. W e th u s a ff

irm . ¶ 1 1
. T H E JU D G M E N T O F T H E L E F L O R 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 . , B A R N E S, I SH EE , R O BE R TS, CARL TON, F AI R AND J AM ES , J J . , CONCUR.