In Mississippi, a person's receipt of unemployment
compensation is based on the reason(s) that their prior employment
ended. Typically, the Mississippi Department of Employment
Security will deny unemployment compensation when the person was
terminated for cause, such as insubordination. The
Mississippi Court of Appeals' recent decision in Gammage v.
Mississippi Department of Employment Security, No.
2012-CC-00523-COA (Miss. Ct. App. May 28, 2013) illustrates that
not all insubordinate behavior by employees will result in the
denial of unemployment compensation benefits under Mississippi
In Gammage, an employee assigned to the laundry of a
hospital complained to her supervisor that a co-employee "had
written a negative letter about her." The supervisor
requested that the complaining employee come to the hospital to
discuss the matter. The employee, who was at home on her day
off, said that "she did not want to come to the hospital,
because she had just washed her hair, and it was cold
outside." A follow-up telephone conversation with the
complaining employee, in which she was again urged to come to the
hospital to discuss the matter, resulted in several heated
exchanges and, ultimately, the termination of the complaining
The Court of Appeals held that the employee was not guilty of
misconduct serious enough to deny unemployment benefits because the
employer had not met its burden of proving "by substantial,
clear and convincing evidence that the discharged employee's
actions amounted to disqualifying misconduct." Two
reasons were given for that decision.
First, the Court of Appeals noted that the hospital's
employee handbook classified insubordination as a violation of
policy requiring two incidents of insubordination before the
employee would be dismissed. Second, the Court of Appeals
held that the employee's "alleged behavior at most
amounted to a single incident of disrespect."
No doubt, the employer in Gammage would have been
better off if management had reviewed the policies set forth in the
employee handbook before firing the employee. More
perplexing, however, was the Court of Appeals' willingness to
condone a mere "single incident of
Mississippi employers should be aware of this Mulligan effect on
insubordination cases and take care when disciplining for such
The content of this article is intended to provide a general
guide to the subject matter. Specialist advice should be sought
about your specific circumstances.
To print this article, all you need is to be registered on Mondaq.com.
Click to Login as an existing user or Register so you can print this article.
Last week, a plaintiff sued the creator and the operator of the Esteem criminal background database—LexisNexis and First Advantage—alleging that they gave prohibited information to potential employers, which ultimately barred him from getting a job. Tsang v. LexisNexis Risk Solutions, Inc., No. CV-14-0493 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 31, 2014).
It is rare these days for a California appellate court to weigh in on whether an
employer is vicariously liable for accidents involving an employee that occur
during the employee’s commute to and from work.
Given the myriad government regulations applicable to credit unions and the need for strict financial controls, a credit union might perceive that an employee handbook is low on its list of priorities.
Most plan administrators know that the recipe for a group health plan’s COBRA obligation includes three ingredients – a qualifying event that occurs while the individual is covered by the plan that triggers a loss of such coverage.
We were happy yesterday to refer readers to a great treatise by our friend, Ellen Pinkos Cobb, Esq., entitled "Bullying, Violence, Harassment, Discrimination and Stress" which she updated for 2014. As a number of clamoring readers reminded us, we forgot to tell you where to get it.