Legal Opinion · Dissent

Pilate v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security

Court of Appeals of Mississippi

Decided March 27, 2012No. 2010-CC-01325-COAPublished

1DissentIrving, P.J.

¶ 15. The majority finds that MDES’s decision to deny Pilate unemployment benefits based on “misconduct” was supported by substantial evidence. Based on my review of the record, TA failed to meet its burden of proving misconduct by “substantial, clear and convincing evidence.” While TA’s general manager attempted to explain the conflicting reasons given for Pilate’s termination, his testimony was, at best, self-serving and arguably pretextual, as it would enable TA to avoid an unemployment-compensation claim. I cannot accept that under such circumstances, TA proved by clear and convincing…

2Cases cited5 opinions

  1. Morris v. United States Environmental Protection AgencyDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2009
  2. Chase v. District of Columbia Department of Employment ServicesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2002
  3. Nevettie v. Wal-Mart Associates, Inc.Missouri Court of Appeals · 2011
  4. Ferrill v. EMPLOYMENT SEC. COM'NMississippi Supreme Court · 1994
  5. Mississippi Employment Security Commission v. JohnsonCourt of Appeals of Mississippi · 2009

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API