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 Juan PAGAN, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 20, 2007, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
In 2006, claimant was employed as a community coordinator for the New York City Housing Authority when he accepted a designation as a Democratic Party candidate for the State Assembly. His employment was subsequently terminated for violating a written policy of the employer prohibiting running for political office in a partisan election. It is well settled that “[v]iolation of an employer's reasonable policies may constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rizzo [Commissioner of Labor], 307 A.D.2d 573, 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306 [2003]; see Matter of Kaplan [Multimedia Entertainment-Commissioner of Labor], 28 A.D.3d 1045, 1046, 814 N.Y.S.2d 330 [2006]; Matter of Bastian [Commissioner of Labor], 19 A.D.3d 915, 916, 797 N.Y.S.2d 600 [2005]; Matter of Letcher [Wal-Mart Stores-Commissioner of Labor], 272 A.D.2d 710, 710, 708 N.Y.S.2d 913 [2000]; Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 870, 870, 672 N.Y.S.2d 456 [1998] ). Here, under guidelines established by the employer to assure compliance with the Hatch Act (see 5 USC § 1501 et seq.) and the City of New York Conflicts of Interest Board Rules, an employee is prohibited from running as a candidate for elective public office in a partisan election. The record demonstrates that claimant was aware of the employer's guidelines prior to his termination and he was afforded an opportunity to comply with the policy before any adverse action was taken by the employer. Accordingly, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination finding claimant guilty of disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Rizzo [Commissioner of Labor], 307 A.D.2d at 573, 762 N.Y.S.2d 306; Matter of Block [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d at 870, 672 N.Y.S.2d 456).
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: July 24, 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)