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 James L. BENBOW, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 19, 2004, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked for the employer as a teaching assistant in its program for children with special needs. He was discharged after he failed to follow the instructions of a supervising teacher concerning the appropriate manner of handling a child who was exhibiting behavioral problems. This occurred after claimant had previously been warned about not following directions and had been placed under a performance improvement plan. Claimant applied for unemployment insurance benefits, but the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that he was disqualified from receiving benefits because he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals.
We affirm. An employee's insubordinate behavior as evidenced by his or her failure to follow an employer's reasonable instructions has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor], 27 A.D.3d 866, 867, 810 N.Y.S.2d 557 [2006]; Matter of Mercure [Commissioner of Labor], 27 A.D.3d 857, 857, 810 N.Y.S.2d 570 [2006]; Matter of Seguin [Sweeney], 244 A.D.2d 747, 747, 665 N.Y.S.2d 688 [1997] ). Here, after documenting claimant's repeated failure to comply with directives as well as his arguments with supervisors, the employer gave claimant an opportunity to correct his behavior and warned him that, if he did not do so, he could be terminated. Claimant nevertheless continued to disregard the employer's instructions during the incident leading to his discharge. Claimant's contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Giotis [Hartnett], 176 A.D.2d 1164, 1165, 575 N.Y.S.2d 604 [1991] ). His remaining contentions have been examined and found to be without merit.
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: September 21, 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)