DANDRIDGE v. HD DIRECT, LLC, 341 S.W.3d 129 (2011)
Court: Court of Appeals of Missouri
Number: inadvmoco111028000115
Visitors: 10
Filed: Jun. 28, 2011
Latest Update: Jun. 28, 2011
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Brittany Dandridge (Claimant) appeals the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her unemployment benefits. Claimant was denied unemployment benefits by a deputy with the Missouri Division of Employment Security, who found that Claimant was disqualified because she was terminated for excessive, avoidable tardiness. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the deputy. She then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relati
Summary: ORDER PER CURIAM. Brittany Dandridge (Claimant) appeals the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her unemployment benefits. Claimant was denied unemployment benefits by a deputy with the Missouri Division of Employment Security, who found that Claimant was disqualified because she was terminated for excessive, avoidable tardiness. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the deputy. She then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relatio..
More
ORDER
PER CURIAM.
Brittany Dandridge (Claimant) appeals the Order of the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission denying her unemployment benefits. Claimant was denied unemployment benefits by a deputy with the Missouri Division of Employment Security, who found that Claimant was disqualified because she was terminated for excessive, avoidable tardiness. Claimant appealed to the Appeals Tribunal, which affirmed the decision of the deputy. She then appealed to the Labor and Industrial Relations Commission. A majority of the Commission affirmed and adopted the decision of the Appeals Tribunal.
On appeal, Claimant argues that her employer failed to meet its burden of establishing that she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work.
We have reviewed the briefs and the Record on Appeal, and find no error of law in this case. Thus, a written opinion would have no precedential value. The parties have been provided with a memorandum for their information only, setting forth the reasons for this order. The judgment is affirmed pursuant to Rule 84.16(b).
AFFIRMED.
Source: Leagle
