in the face with a bottle. Hogsett, 486 S.W.2d at 731. While denying the employee’s claim because of his willful misconduct, the Court stated as follows: “we are of the opinion the employer has shown the three elements, as deduced from the opinions of this Court, constituting willful misconduct as contemplated by the statute and they are: (1) an intention to do the act, (2) purposeful violation of orders, and (3) an element of perversiveness.” Id. at 733. In formulating the willful misconduct test, the Court drew upon Coleman v. Coker, 321 S.W.2d at 542 (upholding a grant of benefits and observing that willful meant that “regardless of what an employee is told he goes on ‘hellbent for election’ anyhow”), and Brown v. Birmingham Nurseries, 173 Tenn. 343, 117 S.W.2d 739, 740 (1938) (<HOLDING>). In both Coleman and Brown, the Court
holding affiants statement that certain conduct constituted intentional or willful misconduct by defendant was conelusory because it stated conclusion and did not provide supporting facts holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct holding that an employees purposeful violation of established safety rules despite instruction and warning constituted willful misconduct holding that employees conscious decision to spend the day on the internet instead of doing his job despite being chided more than once constituted simple not gross misconduct holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct