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 Loretta POLISENO, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 2, 2006, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
Claimant worked as a human resources director for a mortgage bank for over two years until she left her job after the company president sent her an e-mail criticizing the manner in which she handled a work issue. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause and adhered to that decision upon reconsideration.
“It is well settled that criticism by an employer, even if considered to be harsh, does not constitute good cause for leaving one's employment” (Matter of Eames [Ecom Works-Commissioner of Labor], 10 A.D.3d 830, 830, 782 N.Y.S.2d 154 [2004] [citations omitted] ). Here, although claimant maintains that the company president acted unprofessionally in the manner in which he dealt with her, the record does not establish that the work environment was so intolerable as to justify claimant's resignation (see Matter of Zhen Feng Huang [Commissioner of Labor], 21 A.D.3d 1201, 801 N.Y.S.2d 95 [2005]; Matter of Lokensky [Commissioner of Labor], 19 A.D.3d 973, 974, 797 N.Y.S.2d 191 [2005] ). Therefore, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
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: February 08, 2007
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)