ST. LOUIS — A Missouri appellate court upheld the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission's decision, denying a former Cord Moving & Storage Co. employee unemployment benefits for misconduct.
The ruling was based on Robert K. Bennett's repeated negligent actions, which were considered sufficient evidence of "knowing misconduct" under Missouri law, the Sept. 24 opinion states.
The case was before Judges James M. Dowd, Angela T. Quigless and Cristian M. Stevens
In the case, Bennett, who was a driver for Cord Moving & Storage Company, was terminated after being involved in three preventable accidents while driving a company truck between June 15, 2023, and Aug. 3, 2023.
Bennett appealed the decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, which denied him unemployment benefits, citing misconduct under section 288.030.1 of the Missouri Employment Security Law.
The court reviewed Bennett's three points on appeal, which argued that the commission erred in its decision.
First, he claimed there was insufficient evidence to prove he acted with the intent required for misconduct. He also argued that the commission improperly shifted the burden of proof to him, forcing him to disprove his misconduct.
Lastly, he claimed that Cord inconsistently enforced its misconduct policies, as other employees involved in similar incidents were not terminated.
The court rejected Bennett's arguments and affirmed the commission’s decision. The court found that Bennett’s actions constituted "knowing misconduct."
Despite being involved in two accidents on June 15, Bennett did not take additional precautions to prevent further incidents, according to the opinion, and the third accident on Aug. 3, 2023, occurred because Bennett failed to adequately address a visibility issue caused by a passenger blocking his view.
Cord reviewed Bennett's qualifications and discharged him after the accidents.
This pattern of negligence showed a disregard for Cord’s interests and safety standards, which met the threshold for misconduct under section 288.030.1(23)(b), the opinion noted.
The court stated that misconduct includes conduct showing carelessness or negligence to a degree that manifests culpability or a knowing disregard of an employer’s interests.
The court also addressed Bennett’s claim that the burden of proof was improperly shifted.
The court explained that while the burden typically lies with the employer to prove misconduct, Cord met this burden with substantial evidence of Bennett’s careless behavior. Therefore, Bennett's claim that he was forced to disprove misconduct was unfounded.
The court dismissed Bennett’s argument that Cord inconsistently enforced its misconduct policies.
The court found that Bennett’s appeal focused on the wrong section of the law.
"Because the issue here is whether Bennett's action constituted misconduct under Section 288.020.1(23)(b), not a policy violation under section (3), point III is impertinent to the issues in this case and we deny the point," Dowd wrote in the opinion.
Bennett's misconduct was based on carelessness and negligence under section 288.030.1(23)(b), not a violation of a specific company rule under section (e), making the claim irrelevant to the case.
Bennett represented himself. Katie R. Brenneke represented the respondent.
The attorney did not respond to requests for comment on the matter.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Eastern District-Division One case number: ED112508