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 Juliet WILLIAMS, Appellant. Progressive Home Health Care Services Inc., Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 31, 1997, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a home health care provider until she was discharged in February 1995 for failing to notify her employer that she was unable to go to her assigned patient's residence and accepting a patient's residence keys without prior authorization from her employer. The employer's handbook specifically stated that employees were required to notify the employer when they were sick and claimant admitted that she was aware of this requirement but that she notified her patient instead of calling her employer. Claimant was also aware that the handbook prohibited employees from accepting keys to patients' homes without prior authorization from the employer. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied claimant's application for benefits, concluding that she had been terminated for misconduct.
We affirm. Substantial evidence supports the Board's decision. It is well settled that “[f]ailing to comply with the employer's established policies and procedures and acting in a manner contrary to the employer's best interests constitute disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Rothman [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 818, 661 N.Y.S.2d 1025; see, Matter of Benton [U.S. Homecare Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 667, 671 N.Y.S.2d 202; Matter of Tensley [Sweeney], 232 A.D.2d 711, 648 N.Y.S.2d 58). In this case, claimant had received the employer's handbook and attended multiple courses to refresh her memory of the employer's rules and procedures. Claimant's failure to follow these rules and procedures was contrary to the employer's best interest as the rules were established to protect the employer from being subject to possible liabilities. As a result, we conclude that the Board could properly find that claimant's actions constituted misconduct disqualifying her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
MEMORANDUM DECISION.
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 02, 1998
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)