Vector Transp. Co. v. Miss. Dep't of Emp't Sec.
| Decision Date | 01 November 2022 |
| Docket Number | 2021-CC-00576-COA |
| Parties | VECTOR TRANSPORTATION CO. APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF EMPLOYMENT SECURITY AND ANNA K. RENFROE APPELLEES |
| Court | Mississippi Court of Appeals |
EN BANC.
¶1. Vector Transportation Co. appeals from the Lee County Circuit Court's judgment affirming the ruling of the Mississippi Department of Employment Security's Board of Review that Anna K. Renfroe was entitled to unemployment benefits. The Board of Review adopted the "Findings of Facts and Opinion" of the administrative law judge (ALJ), which found that Vector "failed to provide substantial, clear and convincing evidence proving the claimant was discharged for misconduct as that term is defined under the Law."
¶2. Vector hired Renfroe for its carrier-support division on December 19, 2011. According to its brief, Vector is "a freight brokerage company that offers freight services to businesses throughout the United States and Canada" and as such "acts as a middle man in the transportation process and uniquely matches the transportation needs of various shippers and manufacturers with the abilities and capacities of available carriers." Leigh Buntin, Vector's human resources director, explained that employees in the shipper-support division contact customers with goods that need to be shipped and that employees in carrier support focus on finding trucks to ship the loads the shipper-support division secures.
¶3. At the time of hire, employees in carrier support are given an employee handbook that, among other things, sets forth the expectation that those employees are to be on the phone speaking with carriers for a minimum of twenty hours per week. The employee must acknowledge receipt of the handbook in writing and acknowledge that he or she understands the terms.[1] While warnings are not required, Renfroe did receive warnings regarding her failure to meet the telephone time requirement. The first warning was issued orally on January 14, 2020, by Josh Taylor, Renfroe's team leader at the time. Taylor addressed Renfroe's lack of effort in meeting the minimum phone requirement and asked her if there was some problem that prevented her from meeting the requirement. She advised Taylor that at that time, "bids"[2] were keeping her busy. On January 21, 2020, Brian Estes, a co-owner of Vector, sent Renfroe a message through Vector's interoffice messaging system asking why her call time for the entire previous week was only two hours and forty-four minutes. Renfroe agreed she needed to be on the phone more, admitted that there was no excuse, and would work on it. When questioned by the ALJ, Buntin indicated that Renfroe had consistently met the twenty-hour phone requirement a "long time ago" but that there had been problems with her meeting the requirement prior to January 2020. On January 24, 2020, Brian and Joe Estes, another co-owner, along with Buntin, met with Renfroe to address concerns over her job performance. At that meeting, Renfroe was put on a sixty-day probationary period with the understanding that if there was no improvement during that period, her job would be in jeopardy. Renfroe was also included in a meeting with several employees on February 17, 2020, regarding their failure to complete job duties. Renfroe's job performance did not improve during the probationary period, and Joe and Brian met with her again on March 20, 2020. According to Buntin, Renfroe's employment was not terminated at that time because she was a long-time employee, and "they hated to let her go." At that meeting, Joe and Brian told her they would re-evaluate her performance in thirty days. Buntin testified she was not aware of whether there was a re-evaluation, but Renfroe's employment was terminated by Susan Zewicke, her team leader at that time, on June 5, 2020.[3] ¶4. Renfroe filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The Mississippi Department of Employment Security (MDES) notified Vector of its determination that Vector had not shown Renfroe was discharged for misconduct and that Renfroe was eligible for benefits. Vector appealed that decision, and a hearing was conducted telephonically by the ALJ. Buntin, Lee Durrett, general counsel for Vector, and Zewicke participated in the hearing, during which the above facts were developed. Renfroe did not participate in the hearing.
¶5. The ALJ rendered her opinion, finding:
The employer discharged the claimant for poor job performance. The claimant was not able to meet the employer's expectations with the time she spent on the telephone. The claimant was warned about her behavior. However, the claimant never demonstrated the ability to meet the employer's expectations on a consistent basis. The employer has failed to provide substantial, clear, and convincing evidence proving the claimant was discharged for misconduct as that term is defined under the Law.
(Emphasis added). Vector appealed the decision of the ALJ to the MDES Board of Review. The Board of Review adopted the ALJ's findings of fact and opinion and affirmed the ALJ's decision. Vector filed its petition for appeal and review of the decision of the Board of Review to the Lee County Circuit Court. The circuit court affirmed the decision of the Board of Review, finding it was "supported by substantial evidence," "not arbitrary," and "contained no error of law." It is from this judgment that Vector appeals.
¶6. In Mississippi Department of Employment Security v. Jackson County, 166 So.3d 556, 558 (¶10) (Miss. Ct. App. 2015), our standard of review on appeal is described:
We employ an abuse-of-discretion standard when reviewing a trial court's decision to affirm or reverse an administrative agency's findings. McGee v. Miss. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 876 So.2d 425, 427 (¶5) (Miss. Ct. App. 2004) (citation omitted). We must "review the record to determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the Board['s] . . . findings of fact, and further, whether, as a matter of law, the employee's actions constituted misconduct disqualifying him from eligibility for unemployment compensation." Miss. Emp't Sec. Comm'n v. Berry, 811 So.2d 298, 301 (¶8) (Miss. Ct. App. 2001) (citing City of Clarksdale v. Miss. Emp't Sec. Comm'n, 699 So.2d 578, 580 (¶15) (Miss. 1997)).
¶7. The dissent argues that abuse of discretion is not the proper standard here. We disagree. The dissent claims that the abuse-of-discretion standard began with Brandon v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission, 768 So.2d 341, 343 (¶7) (Miss. Ct. App. 2000). The dissent correctly points out that Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-5-531 (Rev. 2021) governs the standard of review for the appeal of a decision of the MDES. Section 71-5-531 provides that "[i]n any judicial proceedings under this section, the findings of the [Board] as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of the court shall be confined to questions of law." (Emphasis added). It appears that the dissent interprets the statute to require this Court to adopt the Board's findings of fact and completely confine its analysis to questions of law. As a result, the dissent claims that "all mentions of an abuse-of-discretion standard should be retired from future opinions."
¶8. Brandon recognizes the statute as the governing authority for standard of review of an administrative agency's determination. Brandon, 768 So.2d at 343 (¶8) ().[4] Brandon elaborates:
Apart from the statute, this Court has spoken to the standard of review of MESC proceedings: "The denial of benefits may be disturbed only if (1) unsupported by substantial evidence, (2) arbitrary or capricious, (3) beyond the scope of power granted to the agency, or (4) in violation of the employee's constitutional rights." Mississippi Employment Sec. Comm'n v. Noel, 712 So.2d 728, 730 (Miss. Ct. App. 1998) (citing Mississippi Comm'n on Envtl. Quality v. Chickasaw County Bd. of Supervisors, 621 So.2d 1211, 1215 (Miss. 1993)). The MESC's decision is rebuttably presumed to be correct. Id.
Brandon, 768 So.2d at 344 (¶9) (emphasis added).
¶9. We obviously are dealing with two standards of review in this case: one for the trial court and another for the Board's findings. "When an appellate court reviews a trial court's decision to affirm or deny an administrative agency's findings and decisions, the appropriate standard of review is abuse of discretion." McGee, 876 So.2d at 427 (¶5) (emphasis added) (citing Brandon, 768 So.2d at 343 (¶7)). The standard for reviewing the findings and decisions of an administrative agency, such as the MDES, is found in Mississippi Code Annotated section 71-5-531. As discussed below, we find that the ALJ's factual findings, which were adopted by the Board, were not supported by substantial evidence. Accordingly, we find that the circuit court abused its discretion by affirming the decision of the Board.
¶10. An employee shall be disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits if he is discharged for misconduct connected to his work. Miss. Code Ann. § 71-5-513(A)(1)(b). The burden of proof to show misconduct is on the employer. Id.; § 71-5-513(A)(1)(c). The employer must prove misconduct connected to the work by substantial, clear, and convincing evidence. City of Grenada v. Miss. Dep't of Emp Sec., 320 So.3d 523, 526 (¶16) (Miss. 2021). In City of Grenada, 320 So.3d at 525-26 (¶14), the...
To continue reading
Request your trial