Grimble v. Brown

• Decision Date: 21 April 1964
• Docket Number: No. 1116,1116
• Citation: Grimble v. Brown, 163 So.2d 373 (La. App. 1964)
• Parties: George W. GRIMBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant. v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, et al., Defendants-Appellees.
• Court: Court of Appeal of Louisiana

Page 373

163 So.2d 373

George W. GRIMBLE, Plaintiff-Appellant. v.Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator, et al., Defendants-Appellees.

No. 1116.

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

April 21, 1964.

Rehearing Denied May 13, 1964.

Writ Granted June 30, 1964.

C. O. Brown, Alexandria, for plaintiff-appellant.

Marion Weimer, Melvin L. Bellar, James A. Piper, Baton Rouge, for defendant-appellee.

Kullman & Lang, by F. A. Kullman, New Orleans, for defendant-appellee.

Before FRUGE , HOOD and CULPEPPER, jJ.

FRUGE , Judge.

This is an unemployment compensation case.Plaintiff was employed by Davidson Sash & Door, Inc. for a period of approximately six years.During the last four of those years he worked as a truck driver.One night he was arrested for driving a motor vehicle while under the influence of intoxicating beverages.At the time of the arrest plaintiff was driving his personal automobile and was in no way engaged in the business of his employer.Subsequently he was convicted of the offense charged and his chauffeur's license was suspended.As a result of the suspension of plaintiff's chauffeur's license, plaintiff's employer discharged him because he could no longer legally perform his duties as a truck driver.Plaintiff thereafter filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits.The Board of Review of the Division of Employment Security denied plaintiff's claim on the grounds that plaintiff had been discharged from his job for misconduct connected with his employment.Plaintiff appealed the Board's decision to the District Court.From a judgment of the District Court upholding the decision of the Board, plaintiff appeals to this court.

The sole question before us is whether plaintiff's discharge under the above stated circumstances is, as a matter of law, misconduct connected with his employment, thereby denying plaintiff his right to unemployment compensation benefits.

An individual is disqualified for unemployment compensation benefits if he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment.LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2).The word 'connected' in this statute has recently been defined by our brothers in the Second Circuit in the case of Smith v. Brown, La.App., 147 So.2d 452.In that casethe court stated that, "(C)onnected', as used in the legislative act, was intended to make a distinction between misconduct with reference to an individual's Private life and misconduct arising during and related to his employment.'147 So.2d at page 453.(...