 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
EDWARD L. BOOTH v. MISSISSIPPI EMPLOYMENT SECURITY COMMISSION9/11/1991
BEFORE ROY NOBLE LEE, C.J., PRATHER AND SULLIVAN, JJ.
PRATHER, JUSTICE, FOR THE COURT:
The central question raised on this appeal is whether absence of notice to an attorney representing the claimant in an administrative proceeding affecting the claimant's substantial rights constitutes a denial of procedural due process. The claimant, Edward L. Booth, received notice of his employer 's appeal before the Board of Review of the Mississippi Employment Security Commission, but his attorney of record did not receive notification.
I. INTRODUCTION
After being fired in January 1989 by his employer , the City of Pascagoula, Edward L. Booth filed a claim for unemployment benefits. The appellate procedure is recounted by the Mississippi Employment Security Commission Board of Review (hereinafter Board):
On February 21, 1989, the Claims Examiner disqualified the above-named individual, hereinafter called Claimant, for benefits under the Mississippi Employment Security Law because the claimant was discharged for misconduct connected with the work. On appeal, the Referee reversed the determination of the Examiner and cancelled the disqualification. The employer , City of Pascagoula Mississippi, then filed further Notice of Appeal to the Board of Review. The case came on for review and decision by the Board of Review at Jackson, Mississippi, on June 12, 1989.
. . . .
FINDINGS OF FACT:
Claimant was last employed by the City of Pascagoula as an equipment operator for approximately seven years ending on January 16, 1989. The Claimant had
previously been discharged by the City but through the efforts of the local union the claimant was reinstated effective October 10, 1988, and was placed on probation for three months. During this probationary period the claimant was absent on several occasions for various reasons. He exhibited threatening behavior on the job. He took one of the City's vehicles without permission and drove it home during his lunch break which was in violation of the rules of the employer . The Claimant was also late in returning from lunch. He also took other workers from the job in violation of the employer's rules. In view of these actions during his probationary period the claimant was discharged on January 16, 1989.
On the basis of these findings, the Board reversed the referee's decision and denied Booth's claim. Booth appealed to the Jackson County Circuit Court, and that court affirmed, finding that the Board's decision was supported by substantial evidence and the applicable law.
Booth appealed to this Court and presented two issues for disposition:
(1) Whether the Mississippi Employment Security Commission's Board of Review's Decision Was Supported by Substantial Evidence?
(2) Whether the Mississippi Employment Security Commission's Failure to Adequately Notify Claimant or Claimant's Counsel of The Employer 's Appeal Deprived Claimant of Due Process?
II. ANALYSIS
A. Issue #1
Through the first issue, Booth contends that the Board's denial of his claim is not supported by substantial evidence.
Well-settled law in Mississippi holds that judicial review of an Board of Review's ruling is limited. Piggly Wiggly of Bay Springs & Dixieland Food Stores, Inc. v. Miss. Employment Sec. Comm'n, 465 So. 2d 1062, 1064-65 (Miss. 1985). Pursuant to statutory law:
In any judicial proceeding . . . the findings of the oard . . . as to the facts, if supported by evidence and in the absence of fraud, shall be conclusive, and the jurisdiction of said [circuit
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Mississippi DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|