Skip to main content

Lawuan Stanford v. The Commissioner of the Department of Labor and Workforce Development and Altama Footwear

Tenn. Ct. App.August 2, 2005No. W2004-02373-COA-R3-CV
Defendant WinAltama Footwear
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Judge Alan E. Highers
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The court affirmed the denial of unemployment benefits to the employee, finding that her failure to report two absences in accordance with employer policy constituted work-related misconduct disqualifying her from benefits.

What This Ruling Means

**What Happened** Lawuan Stanford lost her job at Altama Footwear and applied for unemployment benefits through Tennessee's Department of Labor. The state denied her benefits, claiming she was fired for misconduct. Stanford disagreed and challenged this decision in court, arguing she deserved unemployment compensation. **What the Court Decided** The Tennessee Court of Appeals sided with the state and upheld the denial of Stanford's unemployment benefits. The court found that Stanford had failed to properly report two absences from work according to her employer's attendance policy. The judges ruled that this failure to follow company rules constituted "work-related misconduct," which disqualifies workers from receiving unemployment benefits under state law. **What This Means for Workers** This case highlights how important it is for employees to carefully follow their employer's policies, especially regarding attendance and reporting absences. Even seemingly minor policy violations can be considered misconduct that prevents workers from collecting unemployment benefits after being fired. Workers should familiarize themselves with their company's rules and follow proper procedures for calling in sick or reporting absences to protect their eligibility for unemployment compensation if they lose their job.

This summary was generated to explain the ruling in plain English and is not legal advice.

Browse Related

Facing something similar at work?

Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.

This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.

See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.