Learn About the Law
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
IN RE: the Claim of Magdala M. WEINER, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 25, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked as a sales associate at a department store and purchased a returned fur coat at a significant discount to its listed price without the requisite management authorization. Following an investigation of this incident, claimant was terminated from her position. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. An employee's violation of an employer's reasonable policy, which is detrimental to the employer's financial interest, has been found to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Washington [Commissioner of Labor], 309 A.D.2d 1135, 766 N.Y.S.2d 394 [2003]; Matter of Rizzo [Commissioner of Labor], 307 A.D.2d 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2003] ). The employer's policy concerning employee purchases was designed to protect it against monetary loss, and claimant's disregard of this policy was clearly adverse to its interest. Therefore, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision and claimant's contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Oddo [Lee Publs.-Commissioner of Labor], 32 A.D.3d 1061, 1062, 820 N.Y.S.2d 671 [2006] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
A free source of state and federal court opinions, state laws, and the United States Code. For more information about the legal concepts addressed by these cases and statutes visit FindLaw's Learn About the Law.
Decided: January 10, 2008
Court: Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)
Harness the power of our directory with your own profile. Select the button below to sign up.
Learn more about FindLaw’s newsletters, including our terms of use and privacy policy.
Get help with your legal needs
FindLaw’s Learn About the Law features thousands of informational articles to help you understand your options. And if you’re ready to hire an attorney, find one in your area who can help.
Search our directory by legal issue
Enter information in one or both fields (Required)