ÿWPCÜ L# 8UNC %‘ 0c—U<úw@64vŠ 0§™@ 0JH 0T’ 0^æ 0hD 0r¬ 0| 0†š 0 1u° 0d% 0@‰ D3É 0Dü U>@ B)~ DC§ AMê U*7 AQa Ʋ 0Dx 0D¼ D/ B/aLÁ­v~nvÓì B¿˜HP LaserJet 4SiHPPCL5MS,ü,,,,,ü0nLHÎ(ÈhH  Z 6Times New Roman RegularX(;cW$¡¡Ò°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€XaBXXXÔ-šBu Z‹$Arrus BT Roman wCexDyÓ€zÓ€{Ó€|Ó€}Ó€~ӀЋB\J#x3|x‘(W(3Òì$¤¤Ý ƒcW!ÝÒ°ÒÒ„°ÒÔ€Xä]XXXÔÝ  Ýà ` àòòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó2 ÿÿ0Indent1Ô2ÔÔ3  Ô2" ÿÿ0Indent2à0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2, ÿÿ0Indent3à0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô26 ÿÿ0Indent4à0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2@ ÿÿ0Indent5à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2J ÿÿ0Indent6à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2T ÿÿ0Indent7à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô2^ ÿÿ0Indent8à0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àà0 àÔ2ÔÔ3  Ô ÿÿ?AGMSYaioIndent0I.A.1.a.(1)(a)i)a)P ÿÿ8Mac DefaultMac DefaultÓ ` °šXÓ("ÿÿ$££Ò  ÒÒ  ÒKKKK'ÿÿdxd(#Ã$òòÚ  Ú0Ú  Úóó< Œ 9p`(&Times New Roman% Line 7 d%%%%7Border 1dd* &Cþÿ << Gÿÿ< Œ 9p`(Arial*+ ,-Cþÿ<< CÿÿƒLevel 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 5(3¯$¢¢Ý ƒ!ÝÝ  Ý($$””ò òÚ  Ú1Ú  Úó ó..'÷ÿ dxdüÿP Pd WÝ ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ+"ÝÝ  ÝÔ€(ÔÔ€(ÔÓ  ÓÔ YYY ÔFILEDÔ€(XÔÌÌò òOctoberÏ31,Ï1997ÌÌCecilÏCrowson,ÏJr.ÌÔ€(ôÔAppellateÏCourtÏClerkó ó ·Ý ƒ!ÝÑ  ÑÑ#€d#ÑÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÝ ƒ $Ýà àòòÚ  ÚÚ  ÚóóÝ  ÝRule€10€(Court€of€Appeals).€€òòMemorandum€Opinionóó.€„„€(b)€The€Court,Ïwith€the€concurrence€of€all€judges€participating€in€the€case,€may€affirm,€reverseÏor€modify€the€actions€of€the€trial€court€by€memorandum€opinion€when€a€formalÏopinion€would€have€no€precedential€value.€€When€a€case€is€decided€byÏmemorandum€opinion€it€shall€be€designated€"MEMORANDUM€OPINION,"Ïshall€not€be€published,€and€shall€not€be€cited€or€relied€on€for€any€reason€in€aÏsubsequent€unrelated€case.€Ô€$ÔÌPtPtHHÚ(ÿáÿâùFG(üHHØ(d'`Styl{WP}01•ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃà Ãà Ãà Ãà Ãà ÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÃÐ ÐÐHHÐÐ  ÐÐ2ÐÐÿÿ¸æ$ÿÐÐHHÐÐÐÐÐÐÐÐ  ÐÐ ÐÐ ÐÑÑÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÑ € ÑÑ<Px–ÈÑÒÒÒ443!#4ÒÒ$ *$ÒÒ$*$ÒÒ ÿKK ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÒ  Geneva ÒÓ.,ÓÓÓÓ6ÓÓ ÓßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßßÑGenevaÑÑ ÑÒ  ion-F Geneva ÒÒ  ion-F Geneva Ò dÝ ƒ!ÝÔ . ÔÔ€$ÔÒ  ÒÒ „ ÒÔ€ÔÝ  ÝÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ\R AØ'\ÑÑ7€¬šXXdðdÈ7ÑÑ  ÑÓ  Ó›Þ ÞÌà@ àIN€THE€COURT€OF€APPEALS€OF€TENNESSEEÌà@ àWESTERN€SECTION€AT€JACKSONÌà àà à€€€€______________________________________________ÌÌò òDONALD€DððAMICO,€ó óà àà àà àà àFROM€THE€HENDERSONÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àCOUNTY€CHANCERY€COURTÌà àPetitioner„Appellant,à àà àà àNo.€10980,€THE€HONORABLEÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJOE€C.€MORRIS,€CHANCELLORÌVs.à àà àà àà àà àà àà àC.A.€No.€02A01„9705„CH„00097Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òòòAFFIRMEDÌóóJAMES€DAVENPORT,€ÌCOMMISSIONER,€Tennesseeà àà àà àó óConnie€Westbrook€of€Memphisò òÌDepartment€of€Employmentà àà àà àó óFor€Appellantò ò̜ـ*ÙßR€'/&A1-j|éòù` à. `€€@ÿRß›Security,€and€JOHNSONÌCONTROLS,€INC.,à àà àà àà àó óJohn€Knox€Walkup,€AttorneyÏGeneralÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAnd€Reporter;€Douglas€EarlÏDimond,Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àAssistant€Attorney€GeneralÌà àRespondents„Appelleesà àà àà àFor€James€DavenportÌÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPaul€E.€Prather,€Steven€W.€Likens;Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àKiesewetter€Wise€KaplanÏSchwimmerÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà à&€Prather,€PLC€of€Memphis€ForÌà àà àà àà àà àà àà àJohnson€Controls,€Inc.Ì____________________________________________________________________________ÌÌÑ7€¬šXXdðXXdð7ÑÑ  Ñà@ àMEMORANDUM€OPINION× ƒ0 ××  ×Ì___________________________________________________________________________ÌÌò òòòCRAWFORD,€J.ó óóóÌÌÑ ° ÑÓÓà àThis€appeal€involves€the€denial€of€unemployment€compensation€benefits.€ÏMr.€Donald€DððAmico€appeals€the€decree€of€the€chancery€court€affirming€theÏdenial€of€benefits€by€the€Board€of€Review€of€the€Tennessee€Department€ofÏEmployment€Security€(TDES).€€Ìà àDonald€DððAmico€was€an€employee€of€Johnson€Controls,€Inc.€(JCI)€fromÏMay€1993€to€June€1996.€€Mr.€DððAmico€is€partially€disabled€as€the€result€of€polioÏsuffered€as€a€child.€€By€numerous€verbal€requests€and€by€letter€of€April€28,€1995,ÏMr.€DððAmico€requested€that€JCI€make€certain€modifications€to€his€work€stationÏin€order€to€accommodate€his€disability.€€Mr.€DððAmicoððs€requests€apparentlyÏwent€unanswered€because€in€October€1995€he€filed€a€charge€of€discriminationÏwith€the€Tennessee€Human€Rights€Commission€and€the€Equal€EmploymentÏOpportunity€Commission€(EEOC).€€Mr.€DððAmico€alleges€that€as€a€result€ofÏrequesting€work„place€accommodations€for€his€disability€he€has€been€subject€toÏharassment€and€retaliation€by€JCI€management.€€Mr.€DððAmico€asserts€that€thisÏharassment€resulted€in€his€missing€two€weeks€of€work€for€ð ðmedical€andÏpsychological€intervention.ðð€Ìà àUpon€return€to€work€on€July€12,€1996,€Mr.€DððAmico€was€called€into€theÏoffice€of€the€personnel€manager,€Danny€Azbill,€and€was€asked€to€fill€out€anÏemployment€application€which€was€absent€from€his€file€and€to€provide€aÏdoctorððs€note€explaining€his€absence.€€The€employment€application€is€used€toÏprovide€emergency€contacts,€references,€etc.,€as€well€as€information€to€be€usedÏfor€advancement€purposes.€Mr.€DððAmico€stated€that€when€called€in€to€Mr.ÏAzbillððs€office€he€expected€to€be€fired€on€the€spot.€€He€refused€to€fill€out€theÏemployment€application.€€When€asked€if€he€understood€the€consequences€ofÏrefusing€a€reasonable€request€of€management,€Mr.€DððAmico€allegedly€asked€to€beÏterminated€that€day€and€be€allowed€to€clean€out€his€locker.€€Mr.€AzbillÏsuspended€Mr.€DððAmico€that€day€and€told€him€to€report€back€to€work€the€nextÏday€for€the€final€decision€of€management.€€Mr.€DððAmico€never€returned€toÏwork.€€He€received€a€letter€dated€June€18,€1996€notifying€him€that€hisÏemployment€with€JCI€had€been€terminated€effective€June€13,€1996.Ìà àMr.€DððAmico€filed€another€charge€of€discrimination€with€the€EEOC€onÏJune€18,€1996€alleging€retaliatory€discharge,€and€filed€for€unemploymentÏcompensation€benefits€on€June€20.€€His€claim€for€unemployment€benefits€wasÏdenied.€€This€decision€was€appealed,€and€after€a€hearing€before€the€AppealsÏTribunal,€the€Tribunal€affirmed€the€denial€of€benefits€and€made€the€followingÍfindings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 àFINDINGS€OF€FACT:€Claimantððs€most€recentÏemployment€prior€to€filing€this€claim€was€withÏJohnson€Controls,€Inc.,€from€May€9,€1993,€until€JuneÏ12,€1996,€when€he€was€discharged.€€Claimant€hadÏworked€for€this€employer€through€a€temporary€agencyÏfor€three€months€before€being€hired€by€the€employerÏon€a€permanent€basis€on€May€9,€1993.€€The€employerÏdoes€have€a€formal€written€application€that€is€to€beÏfilled€out€by€potential€employees€and€is€retained€in€theÏpersonnel€file€of€those€who€are€hired.€€There€was€aÏdispute€between€the€parties€as€to€whether€or€notÏclaimant€had€originally€completed€and€returned€theÏapplication,€but€the€evidence€is€clear€that€claimantððsÏpersonnel€file€did€not€contain€a€completed€application.€ÏOn€June€12,€1996,€claimant€was€asked€to€completeÏsuch€an€application.€€It€is€three€pages€long€and€theÏexperience€of€the€employer€is€that€it€takes€thirtyÏminutes€to€complete.€€Claimant€had€earlier€conflictsÏwith€the€employer€and€had€even€filed€a€pendingÏE.E.O.C.€suit€against€them€under€the€Americans€withÏDisabilities€Act.€€He€was€upset€with€the€employer€andÏrefused€to€complete€the€application€even€after€severalÏrequests.€€Instead€of€discharging€claimantÏimmediately,€he€was€suspended€and€asked€to€comeÏback€the€next€day.€€Claimant€decided€that€he€was€notÏgoing€to€fill€out€the€application,€so€he€did€not€returnÏthe€next€day€and€was€mailed€a€letter€of€termination.ÌÌà8 àà8 àCONCLUSIONS€OF€LAW:€An€employee€owes€a€dutyÏto€the€employer€to€comply€with€reasonable€requests,Ïand€failure€to€do€so€may€be€work€connectedÏmisconduct€within€the€meaning€of€TCA€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2).€It€is€not€unreasonable€for€an€employer€toÏask€an€employee€to€complete€an€application€to€replaceÏone€that€is€missing€for€whatever€reason.€€The€evidenceÏwill€not€support€a€finding€that€the€employer€wasÍmaking€the€request€either€as€a€form€of€harassment€ofÏclaimant€because€of€the€E.E.O.C.€suit€or€to€obtainÏinformation€to€use€against€him€in€that€suit.€€ClaimantÏhas€shown€no€reasonable€[sic]€request€from€theÏemployer.€€ò òThe€appeals€Tribunal€finds€that€hisÏdischarge€was€for€work€connected€misconductÏwithin€the€meaning€of€TCA€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2ó ó).€TheÏagency€decision€denying€this€claim€is€affirmed.€Ï(emphasis€added)ÌÌÓÓThe€Board€of€Review€affirmed€the€decision€of€the€Appeals€Tribunal€and€deniedÏMr.€DððAmicoððs€subsequent€request€for€a€rehearing.€€The€chancery€court€grantedÏcertiorari€and,€after€a€hearing,€affirmed€the€denial€of€benefits.€€This€appealÏfollowed.Ìà àMr.€DððAmico€appeals€the€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€and€presentsÏtwo€issues€for€review:€(1)€Whether€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€toÏsupport€the€finding€of€the€Board€of€Review€that€Mr.€DððAmicoððs€refusal€to€followÏmanagement€instructions€was€misconduct€sufficient€to€warrant€termination;Ïand€(2)€Whether€this€misconduct€properly€disqualifies€Mr.€DððAmico€fromÏreceiving€benefits€as€a€matter€of€law.Ìà àThe€standard€for€judicial€review€of€a€TDES€Board€of€Review€decisionÏregarding€unemployment€benefits€is€set€forth€in€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i)€whichÏprovides€in€pertinent€part:ÌÓÓà8 àà8 à(2)€The€chancellor€may€affirm€the€decision€of€theÏboard€or€the€chancellor€may€reverse,€remand€orÍmodify€the€decision€if€the€rights€of€the€petitionerÏhave€been€prejudiced€because€the€administrativeÏfindings,€inferences,€conclusions€or€decisions€are:Ìà8 àà àà8 à(A)€In€violation€of€constitutional€or€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àstatutory€provisions;Ìà8 àà àà8 à(B)€In€excess€of€the€statutory€authority€Ìà àà àà àof€the€agency;Ìà8 àà àà8 à(C)€Made€upon€unlawful€procedure;Ìà8 àà àà8 à(D)€Arbitrary€or€capricious€orÏcharacterized€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àby€abuse€of€à àdiscretion€or€clearlyÏunwarranted€exercise€of€discretion;€orÌà8 àà àà8 à(E)€Unsupported€by€evidence€which€Ìà8 àà8 àà8 àis€both€substantial€and€material€in€theÏlight€of€the€entire€record.Ìà8 àà8 à(3)€In€determining€the€substantiality€of€evidence,€theÏchancellor€shall€take€into€account€whatever€in€theÏrecord€fairly€detracts€from€its€weight,€but€theÏchancellor€shall€not€substitute€the€chancellorððsÏjudgment€for€that€of€the€board€of€review€as€to€theÏweight€of€the€evidence€on€questions€of€fact.ÌÌÓÓT.C.A.€ðð€50„7„304(i)€(Supp.€1997).€€This€Court€must€apply€the€same€standard€asÏthe€trial€court€in€reviewing€the€trial€courtððs€decision€in€an€unemploymentÏcompensation€case.€€òòò òFord€v.€Traughberó óóó,€813€S.W.2d€141,€144€(Tenn.€App.Ï1991).€€Therefore,€in€reviewing€TDESððs€findings€of€fact,€we€are€constrained€to€aÏdetermination€of€whether€there€is€substantial€and€material€evidence€to€supportÏthe€findings.€€ð ðSubstantial€and€material€evidence€is€such€relevant€evidence€as€aÏreasonable€mind€might€accept€to€support€a€rational€conclusion€and€such€as€toÏfurnish€a€reasonably€sound€basis€for€the€action€under€consideration.ðð€€òòò òSouthernÍRy.€Co.€v.€State€Bd.€Of€Equalizationó óóó,€682€S.W.2d€196,€199€(Tenn.€1984)Ï(citations€and€internal€quotations€omitted).€€If€the€record€contains€suchÏevidence,€we€are€limited€to€a€review€of€the€questions€of€law€presented.€Ïòòò òPerryman€v.€Bibleó óóó,€653€S.W.2d€424,€429€(Tenn.€App.€1983).€Ìà àAn€individual€is€disqualified€from€receiving€unemployment€compensationÏbenefits€where€the€ð ðcommissioner€finds€that€a€claimant€has€been€dischargedÏfrom€such€claimantððs€most€recent€work€for€misconduct€connected€with€suchÏclaimantððs€work.ðð€€T.C.A.€ðð€50„7„303(a)(2)€(Supp.€1997).€€The€phraseÏð ðmisconduct€connected€with€such€claimantððs€workðð€is€not€defined€by€theÏstatute,€but€must€be€interpreted€by€the€courts€on€a€case€by€case€basis.€€òòò òWallaceÏv.€Stewartó óóó,€559€S.W.2d€647,€648€(Tenn.€1977);€òòò òArmstrong€v.€Neeló óóó,€725€S.W.2dÏ953,€955€(Tenn.€App.€1986).€€In€òòò òArmstrong€v.€Neeló óóó€this€Court€adopted€theÏfollowing€standard€regulating€the€determination€of€misconduct:ÌœÓÓà8 àà8 àconduct›€evincing€such€wilful€and€wanton€disregard€ofÏan€employerððs€interests€as€is€found€in€deliberateÏviolations€or€disregard€of€standards€of€behavior€whichÏthe€employer€has€the€right€to€expect€of€his€employee,Ïor€in€carelessness€or€negligence€of€such€degree€orÏrecurrence€as€to€manifest€equal€culpability,€wrongfulÏintent€or€evil€design,€or€to€show€an€intentional€andÏsubstantial€disregard€of€the€employerððs€interests€or€ofÏthe€employeeððs€duties€and€obligations€to€the€employer.€ÏOn€the€other€hand€mere€inefficiency,€unsatisfactoryÏconduct,€failure€in€good€performance€as€the€result€ofÏinability€or€incapacity,€inadvertences€or€ordinaryÍnegligence€in€isolated€instances,€or€good€faith€errors€inÏjudgment€or€discretion€are€not€to€be€deemedÏð ðmisconductðð€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€ÏòòBoynton€Cab€Co.€v.€Neubeckóó,€237€Wis.€249,€296€N.W.Ï636,€640€(1941).ÌÌòòò òÓÓArmstrongó óóó,€725€S.W.2d€at€956.€€The€Tennessee€Supreme€Court€has€held€that€theÏburden€of€proving€disqualification€for€benefits€is€on€the€employer€and€that€ð ðinÏorder€to€establish€a€disqualification€there€must€be€shown€a€material€breach€ofÏsome€duty€which€the€employee€owes€to€the€employer.ðð€€òòò òCherry€v.€SuburbanÏMfg.€Co.ó óóó,€745€S.W.2d€273,€275€(Tenn.€1988).€€If€no€duty€owed€to€the€employerÏis€violated,€the€actions€of€the€employee,€even€if€sufficient€to€warrantÏtermination,€do€not€amount€to€misconduct€connected€with€such€claimantððsÏwork€within€the€meaning€of€the€statute.€€òòò òIdó óóó.;€òòò òWeaver€v.€Wallaceó óóó,€565€S.W.2dÏ867,€870€(Tenn.€1978).€€Ìà àAt€the€Appeals€Tribunal€hearing,€Mr.€DððAmico€was€questioned€by€theÏAppeals€Referee€about€why€he€was€suspended:Ìœ›ÓÓà8 àà8 àQ:€Okay.€So€„€so,€Mr.€Azbill€asked€you€to€fill€out€theÏapplication?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€Yes,€sir.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€What€was€your€response€when€he€asked€you€to€fillÏout€the€application?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€I€said€no.Ìà8 àà8 àQ:€And€for€what€reason?Ìà8 àà8 àA:€I€didnððt€give€him€any€reason.€I€said€no.ÌÌà àà àà àà à*à àà à*à àà à*ÌÌà8 àà8 àA:€€€.€.€.€€I€donððt€know€whether€Danny€[Azbill]Ïremembers€it€but€itððs€coming€of€Danny€and€he€says,Ïð ðDo€I€understand€that€youððre€refusing€a€direct€orderÏfrom€management?ðð€€I€said,€yes.€€And€thatððs€the€GodððsÏhonest€truth.€€And€then€he€says,€ð ðWell,€Iððm€suspendingÏyou.ðð€€Thatððs€the€way€I€seem€to€remember€that€itÏwent.€€And€I€said,€well,€you€might€as€well€give€me€„Ïwhatever€juncture€I€put€this€in,€you€„€you€might€asÏwell€give€me€my€termination€papers€now.€€.€.€.€€HeÏthen€said,€ð ðWell,€youððre€suspended€pending€a€decisionÏof€management.ðð€€I€walked€through€the€double€doors,ÏI€made€a€right€hand€turn,€I€went€to€my€locker€to€getÏsome€stuff€out€of€my€locker.€Okay?€Because€I€knewÏthe€way€it€was€going€to€turn€out.€I€was€pre„disposedÏalready,€if€you€know€what€Iððm€saying,€Mr.€Rogers,€andÏthatððs€basically€what€came€down.€€ÌÌœ›ÓÓà àAfter€careful€review€of€the€record,€we€hold€that€there€is€substantial€andÏmaterial€evidence€to€support€the€finding€that€Mr.€DððAmico€was€terminated€forÏwork€related€misconduct€in€that€he€refused€a€reasonable€request€of€managementÏto€fill€out€a€form€required€of€all€employees€and€that€he€failed€to€report€back€toÏwork€after€the€one€day€suspension.€€It€is€obvious€that€there€are€ill€feelingsÏbetween€Mr.€DððAmico€and€members€of€JCI€management,€but€there€is€noÏevidence€that€JCI€was€making€an€exceptional€request€in€order€to€harass€Mr.ÏDððAmico.€€If€Mr.€DððAmico€had€returned€to€work€the€next€day,€his€assertion€thatÏthe€refusal€to€fill€out€the€application€(standing€alone)€was€a€good€faith€error€inÏjudgment€may€have€been€plausible.€€However,€the€evidence€shows€that€Mr.ÍDððAmico€deliberately€disregarded€a€reasonable€request€of€management€and€thenÏfailed€to€return€to€work€at€all.€€We€hold€that€the€decision€of€the€Board€ofÏReview,€adopting€the€findings€of€fact€and€conclusions€of€law€of€the€AppealsÏtribunal€was€not€arbitrary€or€capricious,€but€is€supported€by€substantial€andÏmaterial€evidence.€€Ìà àThe€judgment€of€the€chancery€court€affirming€the€Board€of€ReviewððsÏdecision€is€affirmed.€€Costs€are€assessed€against€the€appellant.à àà àà àà àÌœ›ÓÓà àà àà àà àà àà àà à_________________________________Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àò òW.€FRANK€CRAWFORD,€Ìà àà àà àà àà àà àà àPRESIDING€JUDGE,€W.S.ó óÌÌò òCONCUR:ÌÌÌ____________________________________ÌALAN€E.€HIGHERS,€JUDGEó óÌÌÌ____________________________________Ìò òDAVID€R.€FARMER,€JUDGEó ó