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 Laura HART, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 26, 1997, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from her position as a customer service representative following an altercation wherein she directed obscene and angry language at her supervisor. The record indicates that claimant had been reprimanded eight days earlier and had been warned that no further “outbursts in the office” would be tolerated. We conclude that substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost her employment under disqualifying circumstances. This court has held that an employee's use of vulgar and disrespectful language toward a supervisor may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Puente [Commissioner of Labor], 270 A.D.2d 555, 703 N.Y.S.2d 585, 586), “particularly in cases where, as here, the claimant has been warned to refrain from such conduct” (Matter of Crumel [Commissioner of Labor], 258 A.D.2d 803, 803, 685 N.Y.S.2d 493). Although claimant disputes the employer's version of the events surrounding her termination and claims she was treated unfairly by her supervisor, questions of credibility are for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Marquez [New York City Dept. of Personnel-Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 926, 693 N.Y.S.2d 346; Matter of Crumel [Commissioner of Labor], supra).
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 20, 2000
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)