Mercer v. Ross
| Decision Date | 08 January 1986 |
| Docket Number | No. C-3966,C-3966 |
| Citation | 701 S.W.2d 830 |
| Parties | Justine B. MERCER, Petitioner, v. Don ROSS, d/b/a Crossroads Travel Agency, Respondent. |
| Court | Texas Supreme Court |
Mobley, Green, Harrison & Sparks, Joe R. Green, Longview, for petitioner.
Robin D. Sage, Longview, for respondent.
This is a suit to set aside unemployment benefits. Justine B. Mercer was employed by Crossroads Travel Agency as a travel agent, although she had no previous experience in this type of work. During her period of employment Mercer made a number of errors; she booked tickets incorrectly and prepared them with the wrong names and destinations. She occasionally gave out airline schedules before those schedules became effective, and because of this Crossroads eventually lost a large commercial account. She was never able to do the job to her employer's satisfaction and was discharged. She sought unemployment compensation, and Crossroads objected. The Texas Employment Commission determined that Mercer's actions did not constitute mismanagement; awarded her unemployment benefits; and Crossroads sued to set aside TEC's award. The case was tried on stipulated facts.
The trial court held that TEC had applied an improper legal standard of misconduct and that there was insufficient evidence to support the award. The court of appeals affirmed the judgment of the trial court. 685 S.W.2d 134.
If Mercer is guilty of misconduct, she would not be entitled to unemployment compensation under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221b-3 which provides:
An individual shall be disqualified for benefits: (B) if the commission finds he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his last work.
Art. 5221b-17(q) goes on to define misconduct:
"Misconduct" means mismanagement of a position of employment by action or inaction, neglect that places in jeopardy the lives or property of others, intentional wrongdoing or malfeasance, intentional violation of a law, or violation of a policy or rule adopted to ensure orderly work and the safety of employees, but does not include an act of misconduct that is in response to an unconscionable act of an employer or superior.
Appellate review of a TEC decision is provided for under Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 5221B-4(i) (Vernon 1971), which requires a trial de novo with substantial evidence review. TEC is specifically excluded from the Administrative Procedure and Texas Register Act, Tex.Rev.Civ.Stat.Ann. art. 6252-13a § 21(g) (Vernon Supp.1985). A trial de novo review of a TEC ruling requires the court to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the ruling of the agency, but the reviewing court must look to the evidence presented in trial and not the record created by that agency. Texas Employment Commission v. Holberg, 440 S.W.2d 38 (Tex.1969); Jones v. Marsh, 148 Tex. 362, 224 S.W.2d 198, 202 (1949).
The action of TEC carries a presumption of validity, and the party seeking to set aside the agency's decision has the burden of showing that it was not...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Spicer v. Tex. Workforce Comm'n
...Lab.Code Ann. § 212.202(a) (West 2006); Collingsworth Gen. Hosp. v. Hunnicutt, 988 S.W.2d 706, 708 (Tex.1998) (citing Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex.1986)). The TWC's action is presumed valid, and the party seeking to set aside the decision has the burden of showing that it was no......
-
Mosley v. Tex. Health & Human Servs. Comm'n
...HUM. RES. CODE § 48.406(c)(2) (providing that judicial review will be conducted under the substantial-evidence rule); Mercer v. Ross , 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex. 1986) (recognizing that under the substantial-evidence rule, a reviewing court may set aside an ALJ's decision only if it was "mad......
- Floyd v. Willacy County Hosp. Dist.
-
United Independent School Dist. v. Gonzalez
...review, the trial court may only set aside the agency decision if it was made without regard to the law or the facts. Mercer v. Ross, 701 S.W.2d 830, 831 (Tex.1986). Reasonableness is the touchstone; the court examines the record to determine if reasonable minds could have reached the same ......
-
Table of cases
...829 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1987), §18:4.B.2.c Mercer v. Borden , 11 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (C.D. Cal. 1998), §25:8.B.1, App. 25-2 Mercer v. Ross , 701 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. 1986), §9:5.C.2.e Merchant v. State , 379 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1964, no writ), §1:6.C.2 Meredith v. Beech Aircraft Corp.......
-
Table of cases
...829 F.2d 553 (5th Cir. 1987), §18:4.B.2.c Mercer v. Borden , 11 F. Supp. 2d 1190 (C.D. Cal. 1998), §25:8.B.1, App. 25-2 Mercer v. Ross , 701 S.W.2d 830 (Tex. 1986), §9:5.C.2.e Merchant v. State , 379 S.W.2d 924 (Tex. Civ. App.—Austin 1964, no writ), §1:6.C.2 TEXAS EMPLOYMENT LAW A-62 Meredi......