ARTIFICIAL INTELLIGENCE IS NOT USED, IN WHOLE OR IN PART, IN THE SUMMARIES OF JUDICIAL AND QUASI-JUDICIAL DECISIONS PREPARED BY NYPPL

October 15, 2015

Unemployment insurance benefits denied because claimant’s employment was terminated due to misconduct


Unemployment insurance benefits denied because claimant’s employment was terminated due to misconduct
Matter of Malcolm (Honeoye Falls-Lima Cent. Sch. Dist.--Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 07306, Appellate Division, Third Department

The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled, among other things, that Bernice Malcolm was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Malcolm, a special education teacher, challenged the Board’s finding that she lost her employment due to disqualifying misconduct, stemming from conduct and circumstances that led to the preferment of charges by the employer against her.

The Appellate Division said that it is well settled that a "[v]iolation of an employer's known policies, as well as unauthorized absence from work, have been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct," citing Matter of Maldonado, 118 AD3d 1246.

Here, said the court, the record establishes that, although the employer informed Malcolm that approval for an unpaid leave of absence was required before she commenced an administrative internship at another school, Malcolm failed to request any leave of absence and, instead, used paid sick leave for part of that period. In addition, the record indicated that Malcolm did not submit to a scheduled medical examination required by her employer in order to validate her absence from work or comply with her employer's directive to return to work. The decision also noted that testimony by her employer also established that Malcolm abused the employer's paid leave and bereavement polices on various other occasions.

Under the circumstances presented herein, the Appellate Division found that the Board's finding of misconduct is supported by substantial evidence in the record. As to Malcolm assertion that her absences were justified and not improper, the court said that “this claim presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve.”

The decision is posted on the Internet at:

CAUTION

Subsequent court and administrative rulings, or changes to laws, rules and regulations may have modified or clarified or vacated or reversed the decisions summarized here. Accordingly, these summaries should be Shepardized® or otherwise checked to make certain that the most recent information is being considered by the reader.
THE MATERIAL ON THIS WEBSITE IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY. AGAIN, CHANGES IN LAWS, RULES, REGULATIONS AND NEW COURT AND ADMINISTRATIVE DECISIONS MAY AFFECT THE ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION PROVIDED IN THIS LAWBLOG. THE MATERIAL PRESENTED IS NOT LEGAL ADVICE AND THE USE OF ANY MATERIAL POSTED ON THIS WEBSITE, OR CORRESPONDENCE CONCERNING SUCH MATERIAL, DOES NOT CREATE AN ATTORNEY-CLIENT RELATIONSHIP.
New York Public Personnel Law Blog Editor Harvey Randall served as Principal Attorney, New York State Department of Civil Service; Director of Personnel, SUNY Central Administration; Director of Research, Governor’s Office of Employee Relations; and Staff Judge Advocate General, New York Guard. Consistent with the Declaration of Principles jointly adopted by a Committee of the American Bar Association and a Committee of Publishers and Associations, the material posted to this blog is presented with the understanding that neither the publisher nor NYPPL and, or, its staff and contributors are providing legal advice to the reader and in the event legal or other expert assistance is needed, the reader is urged to seek such advice from a knowledgeable professional.
Copyright 2009-2024 - Public Employment Law Press. Email: nyppl@nycap.rr.com.