Horns v. Brown

• Decision Date: 14 January 1963
• Docket Number: 46207,Nos. 46204,s. 46204
• Citation: Horns v. Brown, 243 La. 936, 148 So.2d 607 (La. 1963)
• Parties: J. S. HORNS v. Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, State of Louisiana, et al.
• Court: Louisiana Supreme Court

Page 607

148 So.2d 607

243 La. 936

J. S. HORNS v.Richard E. BROWN, Jr., Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of the Department of LaborState of Louisiana, et al.

Nos. 46204, 46207.

Supreme Court of Louisiana.

Jan. 14, 1963.

Wilkinson, Lewis, Madison & Woods, Shreveport, Marion Weimer, Baton Rouge, for defendants-appellees-relators.

R. Clyde Lawton, Jr., Shreveport, Dodd, Hirsch, Barker & Meunier, Thomas J. Meunier, New Orleans, for plaintiff-appellant-respondent.

HAMITER, Justice.

The instant case is before us on a writ of certiorari or review to the Second Circuit Court of Appeal.Applications for the writ, submitted by the two defendants, were granted as a matter of right because of an admitted conflict between the decision of that court herein (La.App., 140 So.2d 781) and the previous holding of the Orleans (now Fourth)Circuit Court of Appeal in American Sugar Refining Company v. Taylor, La.App., 115 So.2d 898.SeeLouisiana Constitution Article VII, Section 11.

The suit was instituted in the First Judicial District Court of Caddo Parish by J. S. Horns to obtain a judicial review of the rulings of the Administrator of the Division of Employment Security of Louisiana's Department of Labor(made a defendant herein) and of certain administrative agencies of that Division, all of which denied him unemployment compensation.

The district court rendered a judgment approving those rulings.However, on an appeal, the Second Circuit Court of Appeal reversed that judgment and directed the above named agency '* * * to recognize claimant's eligibility to unemployment compensation benefits under the provisions of the Louisiana Employment Security Law and to cause payment thereof to be made to claimant in accordance therewith.'Whereupon, our writ was issued.

The question presented for our consideration is whether an employee is disqualified from receiving benefits under the provisions of the Louisiana Unemployment Compensation Law (LRS 23:1471 et seq.) when he has been discharged from his last employment solely because of the issuance of several garnishments against his wages in violation of a company policy known to him.In this connection the Administrator and Olin-Mathieson Chemical Corporation(the employer and also a defendant) contend herein that plaintiff's mere 'permitting' of garnishments in violation of the 'company's rule' constituted misconduct connected with his employment within the meaning of LRS 23:1601(2) which provides: 'An individual shall be disqualified for benefits:

'(2) If the administrator finds that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment. * * *'

From the testimony elicited before the Division's Appeals Referee (on which the judicial review was and is based) it appears that plaintiff had been employed by Olin Mathieson Chemical Corporation for a period of some six years prior to his dismissal, during which time he performed his duties satisfactorily and earned a maximum of $44 per week.He was the head of a family consisting of his wife and seven children.It was the policy of his employer to suspend an employee when a garnishment issued against his wages and to terminate the employment if such was not immediately satisfied.

In August and September, 1960 several garnishments were issued against the wages of this plaintiff.With the help of his employer he obtained the release of at least one of them, but he was not so successful as to two others.Consequently, on October 20, 1960he was discharged, the only reason for the dismissal being the existence of the unsatisfied garnishments.

This is the first time that the aforestated question has come before this court, although the matter of a proper construction of the phrase 'misconduct connected with the last employment' has been the subject of inquiry in several cases in the Louisiana Courts of Appeal.SeeAmerican Sugar Refining Company, supra, and In Re: U. S. Gypsum Company, La.App., 121 So.2d 362(Orleans--now Fourth--Circuit);Burge v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security of the Department of Labor, La.App., 83 So.2d 532, Sewell v. Sharp, La.App., 102 So.2d 259, Jackson v. Administrator of Division of Employment Security of Department of Labor, La.App., 128 So.2d 915, certiorari denied (Second Circuit);andBatiste v. Brown, La.App., 134 So.2d 381, Johnson v. Brown, La.App., 134 So.2d 388andVandike v. Brown, La.App., 139 So.2d 803(Third Circuit).In those casesthe courts uniformly enunciated the same interpretation as has been adopted by the tribunals of other jurisdictions having similar statutes.A concise statement of that interpretation is set forth in 48 American Jurisprudence, verbo Social Security, Unemployment Insurance, etc., Section 38, page 541, thusly: 'Misconduct within the meaning of an unemployment compensation act excluding from its benefits an employee discharged for misconduct must be an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the...