Preview:

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS 04/22/97 OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 96-CC-00523 COA

LATHEN L. HARTFIELD APPELLANT v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION APPELLEE

THIS OPINION IS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION AND MAY NOT BE CITED, PURSUANT TO M.R.A.P. 35-B

TRIAL JUDGE: HON. KOSTA N. VLAHOS COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: STONE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: JEREMY DAVID EISLER ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLEE: MARK D. RAY ALBERT B. WHITE NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL-SUIT FOR UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION: UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DENIED

BEFORE BRIDGES, C.J., DIAZ, AND KING, JJ. DIAZ, J., FOR THE COURT:

The appellant, Lathen L. Hartfield, was denied unemployment benefits by the Mississippi Employment Security Commission (hereinafter MESC) after having been terminated by his employer, Trinity Marine, for excessive absenteeism. He argues three points of error on appeal. Finding all of his issues without merit, we affirm. FACTS Lathen L. Hartfield was employed by Trinity Marine as a pipefitter from May 30, 1994, until January 10, 1995. On October 3, 1994, Trinity Marine issued the appellant a written warning for excessive absenteeism. The first warning resulted from multiple absences and tardiness between May 30, 1994, and October 3, 1994. Since June 1994, appellant had been absent from work without notifying his employer on two (2) days; he had been late for work on nine (9) days; and he had received seven (7) excused absences. These absences were in addition to eight (8) days for which appellant provided doctors' excuses. Thus, within appellant's first four (4) months of employment, he had accumulated seventeen (17) absences and nine (9) tardies. On November 8, 1994, appellant received a second written warning. He was cited for having missed one (1) complete day and three (3) partial days, and for having been tardy on two (2) days. On December 9, 1994, appellant received a third written warning for having missed three (3) full days and two (2) partial days of work and for being late three (3) times--all within one month of his second warning on November 8. At this time, appellant was told that no further warnings would be given and that one more occurrence would result in termination. Following this third and final warning, appellant was late for work on three (3) days and was absent on two (2) days, although appellant did notify his employer on these two days that he would be absent. On January 10, 1995, appellant did not report to work and did not call in. Thus, Trinity Marine discharged appellant for excessive absenteeism on January 10, 1995. Subsequently, the MESC Board of Review disqualified the appellant from receiving unemployment benefits. DISCUSSION The appellant alleges three points of error. In summary form, these arguments deal with whether excessive absenteeism and failure to notify the employer of the reason for an employee's absences can constitute misconduct, and furthermore, whether an employer's lack of a specific policy concerning excessive absenteeism can qualify the errant employee for misconduct under the statute. We will group the arguments for discussion purposes. An individual is disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits for misconduct connected with his work. Miss. Code Ann.

Download Lathen L. Hartfield v. Mississippi Employment Security Commission.pdf

Mississippi Law