Leonard Darden v. Mississippi Department of Employment Security

IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

NO. 2024-CC-00159-COA

LEONARD DARDEN APPELLANT

v.

MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF APPELLEE
EMPLOYMENT SECURITY

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 01/03/2024
TRIAL JUDGE: HON. GRADY FRANKLIN TOLLISON III
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED: CHICKASAW COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SECOND JUDICIAL DISTRICT
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT: LEONARD DARDEN (PRO SE)
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE: ALBERT B. WHITE
NATURE OF THE CASE: CIVIL - STATE BOARDS AND AGENCIES
DISPOSITION: AFFIRMED - 03/04/2025
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:

BEFORE BARNES, C.J., WESTBROOKS AND WEDDLE, JJ.

WEDDLE, J., FOR THE COURT:

¶1. Leonard Darden applied for unemployment benefits with the Mississippi Department

of Employment Security (MDES). After a claims examiner denied Darden’s application,

Darden failed to appeal from the decision within fourteen days. Once Darden filed his

appeal, an administrative law judge (ALJ) found the appeal was untimely and entered an

order denying Darden’s requested relief. MDES’s Board of Review upheld the ALJ’s

determination. The Chickasaw County Circuit Court then affirmed MDES’s order. Upon

review, we also find no error and affirm the circuit court’s order upholding MDES’s decision

to deny Darden’s application for unemployment benefits.
FACTS

¶2. Darden’s employer, South Atlantic LLC, terminated Darden’s employment on May

11, 2023. Darden applied for unemployment benefits, and a claims examiner reviewed his

case. When interviewed by the claims examiner, South Atlantic’s representative provided

evidence that Darden had been fired for failing to perform his assigned work duties. After

completing all interviews and reviewing the evidence, the claims examiner found that South

Atlantic had terminated Darden for work-related misconduct. The claims examiner therefore

concluded that Darden was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.

¶3. The notice of the claims examiner’s decision stated the document was sent to both

Darden and South Atlantic on June 23, 2023. The notice informed the parties that they had

fourteen calendar days, or until July 7, 2023, to file an appeal or seek reconsideration of the

claims examiner’s decision. The notice further informed the parties that if an appeal was

filed after the fourteen-day deadline, “a hearing [would] be held to determine whether good

cause exist[ed] for the filing delay.”

¶4. Darden filed his appeal from the claims examiner’s decision on July 26, 2023, which

fell well outside the fourteen-day deadline. On August 10, 2023, the ALJ conducted a de

novo hearing by telephone for the sole purpose of considering the timeliness of Darden’s

appeal from the claims examiner’s decision. During the hearing, Darden acknowledged that

when he initially applied for unemployment benefits, he indicated his email address was his

preferred method of contact. Darden stated, however, that he was unaware this selection

2
meant he would receive notice of the claims examiner’s decision by email. Instead, Darden

testified that an MDES employee had told him that he could check the status of his claim

online. Darden further testified that he relied on the employee’s information, and each time

he accessed the online website, the site merely provided that his application was still under

review. After about two months had passed, Darden called MDES. At that time, Darden

said he learned that his application had been denied and that the deadline for filing an appeal

had passed. Darden stated that he nevertheless filed his appeal on the same day he learned

about the claims examiner’s decision.

¶5. Based on the testimony and evidence, the ALJ found that the notice of the claims

examiner’s decision had been properly provided to Darden, who then failed to file a timely

appeal. The ALJ further found that Darden had not shown good cause for his untimely

appeal. As a result, the ALJ dismissed Darden’s appeal.

¶6. Darden timely appealed from the ALJ’s decision to MDES’s Board of Review, which

affirmed the ALJ’s determination. Darden then timely appealed from the Board of Review’s

decision to the circuit court. On January 3, 2024, the circuit court entered an order finding

the applicable law and substantial record evidence supported the Board of Review’s decision.

The circuit court therefore affirmed the Board of Review’s decision. Aggrieved, Darden

appeals.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7. In reviewing an administrative agency’s decision, we “determine whether the decision

3
was supported by substantial evidence, was arbitrary or capricious, was beyond the agency’s

power to adopt, or was violative of a constitutional or statutory provision.” Langley v. Miss.

State Bd. of Educ., 379 So. 3d 352, 363 (¶41) (Miss. Ct. App. 2023) (quoting Miss. State Bd.

of Contractors v. Hobbs Constr. LLC, 291 So. 3d 762, 769 (¶12) (Miss. 2020)). A rebuttable

presumption exists in favor of the agency’s decision, and the claimant challenging the

agency’s decision bears the burden of proof. Id.

DISCUSSION

¶8. Darden does not dispute that he failed to timely appeal the claims examiner’s decision

denying his application for unemployment benefits. He asserts, however, that he had good

cause for failing to timely appeal the decision to the ALJ.

¶9. Our caselaw holds that

[g]ood cause is established when there is sufficient evidence to show that a
party failed to receive the mailing due to delays in the mail or because of an act
beyond the party’s control. . . . [T]here is a presumption that the majority of
mail is delivered on a timely basis. Mere denial that the notice was received,
without supporting evidence, fails to constitute good cause for failing to timely
appeal.

Coe L. Firm PLLC v. Miss. Dep’t of Emp. Sec., 378 So. 3d 445, 452 (¶24) (Miss. Ct. App.

2024) (quoting Miss. Emp. Sec. Comm’n v. Marion Cnty. Sheriff’s Dep’t, 865 So. 2d 1153,

1157 (¶10) (Miss. 2004)).

¶10. During his hearing before the ALJ, Darden acknowledged that when he first applied

for unemployment benefits, he voluntarily selected email as his preferred method of contact

with MDES. Also, in response to the ALJ’s inquiries, Darden confirmed that his provided

4
email address was correct. His testimony further confirmed that he had Internet access and

was able to regularly check MDES’s website for updates regarding his application. More

importantly, Darden never testified that he was unable to access his email account during the

relevant time frame between filing his application and learning the claims examiner had

denied his application.

¶11. As discussed, “[m]ere denial that the notice was received, without supporting

evidence, fails to constitute good cause for failing to timely appeal.” Id. (quoting Miss. Emp.

Sec. Comm’n, 865 So. 2d at 1157 (¶10)). Here, Darden did not deny that MDES sent the

claims examiner’s decision to the email address he designated on his application. Rather,

Darden’s only defense for his failure to file a timely appeal was that he believed he would

receive notice through another avenue of communication, and he therefore simply failed to

check his email account for a message about his application status. Thus, Darden attributed

his untimely appeal to a misunderstanding, not a lack of actual notice. And other than his

own bare assertions, Darden offered no proof to support his claims.

¶12. Upon review, we find the record contains substantial evidence to support MDES’s

determination that Darden failed to establish good cause for his untimely appeal. We further

find substantial evidence to support the agency’s decision to deny Darden’s application for

unemployment benefits. We therefore affirm the circuit court’s order upholding MDES’s

determination.

CONCLUSION

5
¶13. Because substantial record evidence supports MDES’s determination that Darden

untimely appealed from the denial of his application for unemployment benefits, we affirm

the circuit court’s order upholding the agency’s decision.

¶14. AFFIRMED.

BARNES, C.J., CARLTON AND WILSON, P.JJ., WESTBROOKS,
McDONALD, LAWRENCE, McCARTY, EMFINGER AND ST. PÉ, JJ., CONCUR.

6