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 Luz-Estelle PUENTE, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 25, 1998, which ruled, inter alia, that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
The record demonstrates that claimant, a child protective worker, returned to work after a medical leave of absence and was informed that she was being transferred to Manhattan so that she would no longer have to perform work duties at Brooklyn Family Court where she had filed a harassment complaint against a court officer. Claimant indicated she wished to remain in Brooklyn but was told that there were no current jobs that did not require interaction with this court. As a result, claimant became loud and argumentative and made a denigrating comment about a supervisor's last name. Although the supervisor then told claimant to leave, she refused to do so until a security guard was called. The employer ultimately terminated claimant as a result of this incident and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits.
We affirm. The issue of whether a claimant was discharged for disqualifying misconduct is a question of fact for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Pullum [Sweeney], 224 A.D.2d 897, 638 N.Y.S.2d 232). Notably, insubordination and “[t]he use of vulgar language and disrespectful conduct toward supervisors [can] constitute[ ] disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Stagno [Sweeney], 239 A.D.2d 766, 767, 657 N.Y.S.2d 480). While claimant's version of the events surrounding her termination differed from that of the employer, this conflict presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Rulka [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 876, 672 N.Y.S.2d 450). We have examined claimant's remaining arguments, including her due process claims, and find them to be unpersuasive.
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: March 02, 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)