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 Sharon J. WELLS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 29, 2005, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant lost her employment as a family monitor for a shelter due to disqualifying misconduct. The record establishes that claimant became involved in a heated argument with a client at the shelter. Despite a supervisor twice calling claimant into a small nearby office and advising her that her confrontation with the client was inappropriate and could lead to her termination, claimant continued to engage in the confrontation with the client by using profane language and challenging the client to carry out the verbal threats she was making against claimant. Inasmuch as the record establishes that claimant was aware of the employer's policy prohibiting discourteous behavior, and had received a prior written warning regarding inappropriate conduct, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision (see Matter of Obafemi [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 905, 906, 672 N.Y.S.2d 506 [1998]; Matter of Martin [Sweeney], 226 A.D.2d 800, 640 N.Y.S.2d 300 [1996] ). To the extent that claimant contends that she acted appropriately under the circumstances and denies that she continued to engage in the confrontation with the client, this created a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Mack [Commissioner of Labor], 286 A.D.2d 795, 796, 729 N.Y.S.2d 812 [2001] ).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: May 25, 2006
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)