ST. LOUIS — An appeals court has reversed a decision by the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission, ruling that a former associate attorney is entitled to unemployment benefits after her termination from Hale Robinson and Robinson LLC.
The court determined that Courtney J. Whiteley was not discharged for misconduct associated with her work, as her employer had failed to establish the necessary culpability to justify disqualification from benefits, according to the Feb. 5 opinion filed in the Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District.
Whiteley, who was employed by the firm from February 2022 until her dismissal in July 2023, had been responsible for representing 40 to 50 clients at a time.
Her employer alleged that she failed to maintain effective communication with her clients, leading to multiple complaints.
The firm issued Whiteley a written warning in June 2022, suggesting she send weekly updates to clients, though it did not mandate termination for failing to do so.
A second warning followed in May 2023, reiterating the same recommendations. Despite these measures, Whiteley continued to receive complaints from clients.
Whiteley went on approved maternity leave on June 23, 2023. While she was on leave, her employer reviewed her case files, noted additional complaints, and decided to terminate her employment before she returned.
Whiteley subsequently applied for unemployment benefits, but her employer objected, arguing that she was ineligible due to alleged misconduct.
Initially, the Appeals Tribunal ruled in Whiteley’s favor, finding that her employer had not demonstrated that she knowingly disregarded company policies or violated any established rules.
However, the commission later reversed this decision, determining that Whiteley’s termination was justified due to misconduct, thereby disqualifying her from receiving benefits.
The appellate court found this conclusion erroneous, noting that the employer bore the burden of proving misconduct and failed to provide sufficient evidence.
The court highlighted that Whiteley made efforts to improve her client communication, including delegating responses to her paralegal when necessary, and that no formal policy required weekly client updates.
The court also noted that the commission did not reject the Appeals Tribunal’s credibility determinations or factual findings but still reached a contradictory conclusion.
Citing legal precedent, the court ruled that Whiteley’s performance issues did not constitute misconduct under the law. It determined that while her employer was within its rights to terminate her employment, such a decision did not automatically disqualify her from unemployment benefits.
The ruling stressed that poor performance, even if it led to dismissal, is not the same as misconduct unless it involves willful or intentional disregard for an employer’s interests.
As a result, the court reversed the Commission’s order and remanded the case for an award of unemployment benefits to Whiteley.
The court noted they were unaware of any cases where misconduct was found based solely on poor performance despite the employee's best efforts to comply and therefore agree with the Appeals Tribunal that Whiteley's performance deficiencies, while justification for her discharge, do not, as the commission concluded, disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits.
The appellant is represented by Ryan Evans,
The respondent is represented by Andrea Follett and Tamra Robinson.
Attorneys did not respond to requests for comment before publication.
Missouri Court of Appeals, Western District case number: WD87241