ST. LOUIS — An appellate court in Missouri says an unemployment compensation claim was rightfully denied due to misconduct related to the attendance policies of her former employer.
Royce Jones appealed the denial of unemployment compensation by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, according to the Sept. 24 opinion by the Missouri Court of Appeals-Eastern District, Division One.
The commission found that Jones was discharged from her job as a day shift manager at Simploy Inc. for misconduct related to violating the company's attendance policies.
Jones' last day of work was June 15, 2023, and she was officially discharged on July 12, 2023.
Jones had scheduled surgery for June 21 and was aware she would need time off for recovery and she had also taken vacation days on June 16 and June 19, with the expectation to return to work on June 20.
On June 15, Simploy’s human resources manager sent Jones Family and Medical Leave Act (FMLA) forms, asking that they be returned by June 20.
Jones did not return to work as expected on June 20, and she failed to notify her employer in advance. She provided a doctor's note dated June 15 stating she could return on June 26.
However, Jones did not show up for work on June 26 or communicate with her employer. She eventually sent an updated note on June 26, but it did not specify a return date.
Despite receiving warnings, she never submitted the FMLA paperwork or contacted her employer again until July 11, when she mentioned her doctor had the forms. The employer terminated her on July 12 for job abandonment.
Jones applied for unemployment compensation, but it was denied due to her failure to submit the required FMLA paperwork and unexcused absences.
The commission found that her actions violated the company’s no-call, no-show policy, and, on appeal, Jones argued that her employer did not provide adequate time or guidance for submitting the FMLA paperwork, but the record showed that she had been given ample time and failed to communicate with her employer.
The court reviewed the case and found that the commission’s decision was supported by substantial evidence.
"Sufficient competent evidence in the record shows that Employer, despite Claimant’s allegations to the contrary, did provide FMLA forms on June 15, 2023 along with guidance that Claimant’s doctor could fax the completed forms directly to the human resources manager," Judge Angela T. Quigless wrote in the opinion. "Claimant acknowledged at the evidentiary hearing that she received the forms, and she never identifies what 'necessary FMLA forms and guidance' Employer purportedly failed to provide."
The court determined that Jones’ failure to submit the paperwork and her unexcused absences constituted misconduct.
"We have already determined that Claimant’s argument that Employer failed to provide necessary FMLA forms and guidance is not supported by the record," Quigless wrote. "Instead, the record shows that Claimant failed to provide the required medical certification forms to Employer."
Quigless wrote that, as a result, the commission did not err when it found that Jones failed to provide sufficient notice and documentation for FMLA leave.
The court affirmed the commission's decision to deny unemployment benefits, dismissing Jones' arguments as unfounded.
Jones represented herself.
Bart A. Matanic represented the respondent.
The respondent's attorney declined to comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District-Division One case number: ED112394