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 Deborah J. VALENTA, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 26, 2005, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant worked for the employer as an insurance consultant at a telephone call center from October 2003 until February 2005. After she had previously received both verbal and written warnings concerning her tardiness, she was late returning from her lunch break and was terminated. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board disqualified her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she lost her employment due to misconduct, prompting this appeal.
An employee's failure, despite repeated warnings, to comply with an employer's policy regarding tardiness has been held to constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Chapman [Commissioner of Labor], 275 A.D.2d 857, 713 N.Y.S.2d 228 [2000]; Matter of Wayne [Commissioner of Labor], 261 A.D.2d 768, 769, 689 N.Y.S.2d 780 [1999] ). Here, claimant received verbal coaching for tardiness in September 2004, a documented verbal counseling memo in November 2004 detailing numerous instances of tardiness during the preceding 12 months and a final written warning in December 2004. Nevertheless, in February 2005, she admittedly failed to timely return to her job following a lunch break. In view of this, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant was terminated for misconduct.
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: March 15, 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)