Sleeping on the job and urinating in public may not be considered employee misconduct in Missouri’s courts. While an employee can be fired for these infractions, the worker could still qualify for unemployment benefits under current Missouri law.
Missouri law holds that an employee who is discharged for “misconduct in connection with work” can be blocked from receiving unemployment benefits for up to 16 weeks.
However, because Missouri’s definition of misconduct is so broad, there is no clarity to when that misconduct is severe enough to result in denial of benefits. Under the law, work-related misconduct must involve “willful violation” of the employer’s policy and disregard the interests of the employer.
Case in pointA Western Court of Appeals decision reveals that falling asleep at work doesn’t always fit into that definition. In the case Richardson v. Division of Employment Security, the Missouri Western Court of Appeals held that Dawn Richardson, an employee fired for sleeping on the job, should receive unemployment benefits because it could not be proved that she engaged in “willful misconduct.”
Richardson, a certified nurse’s aide, was to report to duty at the Alzheimer’s unit of Seniortrust of Columbia LLC, a nursing home, on April 7, 2010. After driving all night from an automobile trip and suffering from an allergic reaction to seafood, Richardson called in sick two hours before her work shift was to start. Her request was denied, and Richardson took a Benedryl and reported to work. On several occasions during her shift, Richardson was found asleep at her station, where she was responsible for watching patients with varying degrees of dementia. The next day, she was fired. When Richardson filed a claim for unemployment compensation, her claim was protested by Seniortrust. The Missouri Division of Employment Security disqualified Richardson for five weeks because she was fired for misconduct. The Labor and Industrial Relations Commission affirmed the decision. Richardson filed an appeal with Western District Court of Appeals, where the decision was reversed.
The appellate court explained in its ruling, “Certainly not all circumstances where an employee loses consciousness at work can be deemed to have involved a conscious decision by the employee or is the result of conscious behavior.”
Try telling that to the family of an Alzheimer’s patient who could have been injured while under the sleeping Richardson’s care.
As absurd as this case may sound, the case Charles Pusateri v. St. Joseph Buchanan County School District is even more bizarre.
In this case, Pusateri was employed by the St. Joseph School District to inspect and repair roofs for several schools in the district. As an employee of the school district, Pusateri had full use of the school facilities in which he worked and was allowed time for restroom breaks.
On Nov. 16, 2010, Pusateri was observed urinating off a school roof while school was in session in the building below him. He was fired as a result. Pusateri filed for unemployment benefits. The Division of Employment Security upheld his request, stating that the “claimant’s poor judgment justified his discharge.” However, the division ruled, the claimant’s act did not rise to the level of misconduct necessary to deny unemployment compensation benefits.
While public urination is considered a crime in some states and jurisdictions, in Missouri’s Division of Employment Appeals Court, it’s not even considered misconduct.
Under reviewLiberal interpretation of the definition of misconduct will continue to allow cases like these in Missouri’s unemployment insurance system, raising the costs on all employers who fund the system.
Efforts are under way by the Missouri Chamber of Commerce to strengthen the definition of misconduct in the law and Missouri lawmakers are expected to act on this issue [Senate Bill 28] this legislative session.
Tracy King is vice president of governmental affairs for the Missouri Chamber of Commerce and Industry. She can be reached at tking@mochamber.com.
