Antuan J. Foxx v. James Neely

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF TENNESSEE

AT NASHVILLE

Assigned on Briefs November 7, 2003

ANTUAN J. FOXX v. JAMES NEELY, ET AL.

Appeal from the Chancery Court for Davidson County

No. 02-1743-1 Irvin H. Kilcrease, Jr., Chancellor

No. M2003-01634-COA-R3-CV - Filed November 21, 2003

This is an appeal by a former employee whose unemployment compensation benefits were denied on

the basis of work-related misconduct, specifically for allegedly refusing to perform certain work as

requested by a supervisor. The claim for benefits was denied by the Employment Security Division

of the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development. The employee filed a petition

with the Chancery Court for judicial review. The Chancery Court affirmed. The employee asserts

that the denial of his claim is not supported by substantial and material evidence. We find there is

substantial and material evidence to support the denial of benefits and affirm the trial court.

Tenn.R. App. P.3 Appeal as of right; Judgment of the Chancery Court

Affirmed and Remanded

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., J., delivered the opinion of the court, in which WILLIAM C. KOCH , JR., P.J.,

M.S., and WILLIAM B. CAIN , J., joined.

Frank J. Scanlon, Nashville, Tennessee, for the appellant, Antuan J. Foxx.

Paul G. Summers, Attorney General and Reporter; and Warren A. Jasper, Assistant Attorney General,

for the appellee James Neely, Commissioner, Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce

Development.1

1

James Neely succeeded M ichael Magill as Comm issioner of the T ennessee D epartment of Labor and

W orkforce Development. Accordingly, James Neely has been substituted as the party defendant pursuant to Rule 19(c)

Tenn. R. App. P. (when an officer of the state ceases to hold office, the officer’s successor is automatically substituted

as a party).

MEMORANDUM OPINION2

Antuan J. Foxx (Foxx) was employed by Charging Systems International, Inc. (CSI). CSI

manufactures battery chargers. Foxx’s primary function was to mount transformers on circuit boards.

Foxx was initially compensated on an hourly basis; however, his compensation was changed to a

piece-work rate by which he was paid by the number of transformers he mounted to circuit boards.

Nevertheless, CSI reserved the right to assign different work to Foxx with the understanding that

Foxx may be paid by different methods and amounts of compensation for the other work.

On November 14, 2001, Foxx’s supervisor instructed Foxx to work at a different area to

perform a different function. Specifically, Foxx was asked to mount a transformer for a special order.

The new assignment required more time to assemble than the mounting process at Foxx’s primary

work station. Realizing that the new assignment was more time consuming, Foxx requested a

specific increase in his piece-work rate of payment in order to not reduce the amount of money he

would make in a day. Though company officials refused to give a specific increase, Foxx was

assured they would “figure out” a rate of compensation later. Foxx refused to perform the new duties

until he was assured of his exact pay. His supervisor admonished him and asked Foxx if he would

be willing to sign a statement confirming his refusal to accept the assignment. Foxx ultimately agreed

to do the requested work and reported to the appropriate area of the plant to do the work for the

special order. Upon arriving at the new work station, Foxx determined that there was insufficient

work for him to do, specifically that there was an insufficient supply of transformers to remain busy.

Foxx unilaterally left the new assignment, returned to his normal work station, and did not

subsequently inquire to see if his services were needed for the special order. Later that evening the

CSI production manager discovered that not all of the special order had been assembled and

ascertained that Foxx had left his new assignment. The following day Foxx was terminated for

insubordination for not assembling the special order as instructed.

Foxx applied for unemployment compensation benefits. His claim was denied on the basis

that Foxx was guilty of work-related misconduct.

The issue presented is whether there is substantial and material evidence to support the

decision of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development that Foxx was guilty of work-

related misconduct disqualifying him for benefits under Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(a)(2).

2

Tenn. R. C t. App . 10 states:

This Court, with the concurrence of all judges participating in the case, may affirm, reverse or mod ify

the actions of the trial court by memorandum opinion when a formal opinion would have no

precedential value. When a case is decided by memora ndum opinion it shall be designated

“MEMORANDUM OP INION ,” shall no t be published, and shall not be cited or relied on for any

reason in any unrelated case.

-2-

The standard for judicial review of decisions of the Board of Review granting or denying

unemployment compensation benefits is set forth in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-304(I)(2) and (3). The

pertinent provisions are as follows:

(2) The chancellor may affirm the decision of the [Board of Review] or . . . may

reverse, remand or modify the decision if the rights of the petitioner have been

prejudiced because the administrative findings, inferences, conclusions or decisions

are: (A) In violation of constitutional or statutory provisions; (B) In excess of the

statutory authority of the agency; (C) Made upon unlawful procedure; (D) Arbitrary

or capricious or characterized by abuse of discretion or clearly unwarranted exercise

of discretion; or (E) Unsupported by evidence which is both substantial and material

in light of the entire record.

(3) In determining the substantiality of evidence, the chancellor shall take into

account whatever in the record fairly detracts from its weight, but the chancellor shall

not substitute the chancellor’s judgment for that of the board of review as to the

weight of the evidence on questions of fact. No decision of the board shall be

reversed, remanded or modified by the chancellor unless for errors which affect the

merits of the final decision of the board. . . .

When reviewing the decision of the Board of Review, the issue is not whether there is

evidence in the record that might contradict the decision of the Board of Review, but whether there

is substantial evidence to support that decision. Jackson v. Bible, 611 S.W.2d 588, 590 (Tenn. Ct.

App.1980). So long as there is any evidence that supports the agency’s factual findings, judicial

review is limited to questions of law. Id. at 590. It is generally held that courts must affirm the Board

of Review if there is any evidence to support the Board’s decision, unless the Board’s decision is

contrary to the law. Perryman v. Bible, 653 S.W.2d 424, 429 (Tenn. Ct. App.1983).

The Board of Review found that there was sufficient evidence of misconduct, that his failure

to follow his supervisor’s instructions constituted work-related misconduct and that such conduct

disqualified him from unemployment benefits as work-related misconduct under Tenn. Code Ann.

§ 50-7-303(a)(2). The Chancellor affirmed the decision of the Board of Review, finding the decision

was supported by substantial and material evidence, and dismissed the Petition for Judicial Review.

We also find that there is substantial and material evidence to support the decision.

Accordingly, the judgment of the trial court is affirmed. Costs are assessed against the

Appellant, Antuan J. Foxx.

___________________________________

FRANK G. CLEMENT, JR., JUDGE

-3-