Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC
Decision Date | 10 May 2016 |
Docket Number | No. ED 103466,ED 103466 |
Citation | 489 S.W.3d 338 |
Parties | Robin Stahl, Respondent, v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC, Appellant, and Division of Employment Security, Respondent. |
Court | Missouri Court of Appeals |
Alan J. Agathen, 130 S. Bemison, Suite 610, St. Louis, MO 63105, for appellant.
Larry R. Ruhmann, 421 East Dunklin St., Jefferson City, MO 65101, for respondent.
The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission (“the Commission”) granted the respondent, Robin Stahl (“Stahl”), unemployment benefits after it found that she was discharged from her employment by appellant Hank's Cheesecakes (“Hank's”). Hank's appeals, arguing that the Commission erred in awarding Stahl unemployment benefits because she was terminated for misconduct by intentionally striking a co-employee. The Commission found that Stahl's conduct, while a justification for her termination, did not rise to the level of misconduct warranting her disqualification of unemployment benefits. The issue presented by this appeal is whether an employee's conduct of intentionally striking a fellow employee on company time and on the company's premises necessarily constitutes misconduct that disqualifies the employee from unemployment benefits. Because Stahl's action in hitting her co-employee did not violate an express work rule of Hank's, and, when considering the context of the incident, did not demonstrate a disregard of the standard of behavior which Hank's had the right to expect of her, we find no reversible error in the Commission's decision and affirm the award of benefits to Stahl.
Hank's is a small, family business located in St. Louis County, Missouri. Stahl was employed as an assistant baker at Hank's from November 12, 2014, to April 8, 2015. On April 7, 2014, Stahl was talking with a co-worker, Cari Dalton (“Dalton”), in her work area when Mike Jones (“Jones”), another co-worker, walked by Stahl and Dalton and said, “Are you talking about getting sand in your vagina again?” Both Dalton and Stahl heard the comment. Stahl claimed to be offended by the remark and immediately responded by hitting Jones with the back of her hand on his buttocks. Stahl claims that she instinctively responded to Jones's remark which she found vulgar and inappropriate. Jones characterized the striking as “more malicious than just a love tap,” and as an attempt by Stahl to punish him “like a mother would smack their child if they did something wrong.” Dalton, the person to whom the comment was directed, said that she was not offended by the comment, but that Stahl was offended and angry, and that Stahl hit Jones in the buttocks “pretty hard” with a pan. The incident lasted about three to four seconds. Stahl was discharged from her employment on April 8, 2014, for physically hitting Jones and lying about the incident that occurred on Tuesday, April 7, 2015.1
Stahl timely filed for unemployment benefits. Hank's filed a written protest of Stahl's claim for benefits on the grounds that Stahl was discharged for misconduct in connection with her employment. A deputy for the Missouri Division of Employment Security (“the Division”) determined that Stahl was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because she was discharged on April 8, 2015, but not for misconduct connected with the work. Hank's appealed the deputy's determination to the Division's Appeals Tribunal. A hearing was held by means of a telephone conference on June 18, 2015. The hearing was continued to July 9, 2015, at which time it was concluded. The Appeals Tribunal affirmed the deputy's determination and found that “[t]he claimant is not disqualified for benefits by reason of the claimant's discharge from work on April 8, 2015.”
Hank's appealed the decision of the Appeals Tribunal to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which affirmed and adopted the Decision of the Appeals Tribunal. Hank's now appeals to this Court.
Hank's raises only one point on appeal. Hank's contends that the Commission erred in affirming the award of unemployment compensation benefits to Stahl because there is insufficient competent evidence to support the award as the facts demonstrate that Stahl was guilty of misconduct when she intentionally struck a co-employee in anger.
Article V, section 18 of the Missouri Constitution provides for judicial review of the Commission's decisions to determine whether they “are supported by competent and substantial evidence upon the whole record.” Mo. Const. art. V, § 18, Under Section 288.2102 :
“Whether the award is supported by competent and substantial evidence is judged by examining the evidence in the context of the whole record.” Hampton v. Big Boy Steel Erection, 121 S.W.3d 220, 223 (Mo. banc 2003). “This Court defers to the Commission on issues involving the credibility of witnesses and the weight given to testimony,” Johnson v. Denton Const. Co., 911 S.W.2d 286, 288 (Mo. banc 1995), but in so doing we do not view “the evidence and all reasonable inferences drawn therefrom in the light most favorable to the award.” Hampton, 121 S.W.3d at 223. This Court reviews questions of law de novo, and “[w]hether the Commission's findings support the conclusion that a claimant engaged in misconduct connected with his or her work is a question of law.” Fendler v . Hudson Servs., 370 S.W.3d 585, 588–89 (Mo. banc 2012) (internal citations omitted).
When the Commission adopts the decision of the Appeals Tribunal, the Court of Appeals considers the Appeals Tribunal's decision to be the decision of the Commission for purposes of review. White v. St. Louis Teachers Union. Div. of Emp't Sec., 217 S.W.3d 382, 389 (Mo.App.W.D. 2007).
“In general, a claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she is entitled to unemployment benefits; however, when the employer claims that the applicant was discharged for misconduct, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the claim of misconduct connected with work.” White v. Div. of Emp't Sec., 431 S.W.3d 583, 586 (Mo.App.W.D. 2014) (internal citations omitted). As a result, Hank's had the burden of proving by a preponderance of the evidence that Ms. Stahl was fired for misconduct. Id.
A claimant is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he was discharged for misconduct connected with work. Section 288.050.2 (Cum. Supp. 2015). Misconduct is defined as:
Section 288.030.1(23) (Cum. Supp. 2015). The facts are not disputed that Stahl struck a coworker in the workplace in an immediate response to a vulgar remark made by that co-worker. The entire incident was brief, occurring in a matter of seconds. While there is some discrepancy in the testimony as to whether Stahl struck Jones with the back of her hand or a kitchen pan, the referee found Stahl's testimony more credible than the witnesses presented by Hank's. The referee found that Stahl attempted to slap Jones on his hip with her hand, but inadvertently hit him on the buttocks. Hank's posits that regardless of whether Stahl struck Jones with her hand or a kitchen pan, Stahl's intentional striking of a co-worker in the workplace demonstrates “a knowing disregard of the employer's interest or a knowing violation of the standards which the employer expects of his or her employee” and therefore constitutes misconduct under Section 288.030.1(23)(a). We disagree.
While we do not suggest that intentionally striking a co-employee in the workplace may never constitute disqualifying misconduct as defined by Missouri statute, we are not inclined to announce or impose a bright-line test as suggested by Hank's that any deliberate touching of a co-employee necessarily qualifies as misconduct under Missouri law. To the contrary, we hold that an appropriate...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Hoeft v. True Mfg. Co.
...for misconduct, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the claim of misconduct connected with work." Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC, 489 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) (quoting White v. Division of Emp. Security , 431 S.W.3d 583, 586 (Mo. App. W.D. 2014) ).Discussion Our discuss......
-
Wilson v. Progressive Waste Solutions of Mo, Inc.
...considers the Appeals Tribunal's decision to be the decision of the Commission for purposes of review. Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC , 489 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016)."In general, a claimant bears the burden of demonstrating that he or she is entitled to unemployment benefits; h......
-
Ausley v. CCL Label (St. Louis), Inc.
...for misconduct connected with work, the burden shifts to the employer to prove the claim of misconduct. Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC , 489 S.W.3d 338, 342 (Mo.App.E.D. 2016). The standard of proof is by a preponderance of the evidence. Id.As a result of the 2014 amendment to § 288.030.1......
-
Weppner v. Shade Tree Serv. Co.
...Wilson v. Progressive Waste Solutions of Mo., Inc. , 515 S.W.3d 804, 808 (Mo. App. E.D. 2017) ; see also Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC , 489 S.W.3d 338, 343 (Mo. App. E.D. 2016) ("[A]ppropriate analysis of whether an employee's physical actions towards a co-worker constitute misconduct r......
-
Chapter 26 - § 26.4 • ADVISING EMPLOYERS
...informed its employees of this policy in its handbook and employment agreement. Id. at 1253. But see Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC, 489 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). Businesses can significantly reduce the risk for workplace violence by adhering to the following guidelines. Safe Hiring......
-
Chapter 26 - § 26.4 • ADVISING EMPLOYERS
...informed its employees of this policy in its handbook and employment agreement. Id. at 1253. But see Stahl v. Hank's Cheesecakes, LLC, 489 S.W.3d 338 (Mo. Ct. App. 2016). Businesses can significantly reduce the risk for workplace violence by adhering to the following guidelines. Safe Hiring......