Skip to main content

Tennessee Credit Union v. Wanda Powell

Tenn. Ct. App.June 19, 2019No. M2018-01384-COA-R3-CV
Facing something similar at work?Check your rights — free, private, no sign-up

Case Details

Judge(s)
Presiding Judge Frank G. Clement, Jr.
Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
Published
Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
Appeal of employer's Petition for Judicial Review of Department of Labor and Workforce Development decision; affirmed by chancery court and upheld on appeal

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

Court affirmed the Department of Labor's decision that the employee's unauthorized use of employer's instant message system for personal chatting constituted a good faith error in judgment rather than misconduct, making her eligible for unemployment benefits.

Excerpt

This is an appeal of an employer's Petition for Judicial Review, which challenged a ruling by the Tennessee Department of Labor and Workforce Development that the employer's former employee was entitled to unemployment benefits. The employer contended the employee was ineligible for benefits because she was terminated for "misconduct," as defined in the Tennessee Employment Security Act, for violating a policy known to the employee by using the employer's property for a non-businessrelated purpose. The Department found that the employee's frequent use of the employer's internal instant message system to "chat" with co-workers was an error in judgment or discretion but did not rise to the level of "misconduct," which Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303(b)(3) defines as excluding "good faith errors in judgment or discretion." The chancery court affirmed the agency's decision. The employer appeals, contending the "good faith exception" never applies when an employee is discharged for violating an employer's policy or rule. The Department counters, insisting the good faith exception applies regardless of the employer's reason for termination. Construing the statute according to the natural, ordinary meaning of the language chosen by the legislature, we have determined that an employee's violation of an employer's policy that is due to good faith errors in judgment or discretion does not constitute "misconduct" as that term is defined in Tenn. Code Ann. § 50-7-303. Accordingly, we affirm.

What This Ruling Means

**What happened:** Wanda Powell was fired from Tennessee Credit Union for using the company's instant messaging system for personal conversations, which violated workplace policy. When Powell applied for unemployment benefits, the credit union argued she shouldn't receive them because her actions constituted "misconduct" under Tennessee law. The Tennessee Department of Labor disagreed and approved her benefits. The credit union then took the case to court to challenge this decision. **What the court decided:** The Tennessee Court of Appeals sided with Powell and upheld the Department of Labor's ruling. The court determined that Powell's personal use of the messaging system was a "good faith error in judgment" rather than serious misconduct that would disqualify her from unemployment benefits. **Why this matters for workers:** This ruling clarifies an important distinction for employees who lose their jobs. Not every policy violation automatically disqualifies you from unemployment benefits. Courts will look at whether your actions were serious misconduct or simply poor judgment. Minor infractions or honest mistakes may still allow you to collect unemployment benefits while you search for new work, providing crucial financial support during job transitions.

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.