Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page

Williams v Special Transportation, Inc 12.50

Section 29(1)(b)

MISCONDUCT DISCHARGE, Carelessness/negligence, Definition of misconduct, School bus driver

CITE AS: Williams v Special Transportation, Inc., No. 52036 AE, Ingham Circuit Court (March 8, 1985).

Appeal pending: No

Claimant: Verlee Williams

Employer: Special Transportation, Inc.

Docket No: B82 02013 83723

CIRCUIT COURT HOLDING: The elements of misconduct are not present where there is no undertaking, design or scienter present.

FACTS: The employer alleged that claimant was warned for: speeding, failure to report a damaged vehicle, failure to check her run book, lateness, leaving special equipment for a wheelchair, inappropriate use of a vehicle and failure to pick up a student. She was placed on a 30-day suspension and then discharged after failing to pick up a student on time. These incidents occurred from November 14, 1980 to October 19, 1981.

DECISION: Claimant is not disqualified for misconduct.

RATIONALE: Relying on Carter v ESC, 364 Mich 538 (1961), the court stated that "there must be a measure of culpability going beyond mere continued negligent behavior. In examining the record, this court can find no instance which falls within the Carter definition of 'misconduct' ... this series of instances spanning some ten months, even considered as a whole, does not manifest the required wrongful intent or evil design."


6, 9, d3:NA

Previous PageTable Of ContentsNext Page