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 Shannon A. CHILLIOUS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeals from two decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed April 30, 2003 and May 9, 2003, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decisions of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board finding that claimant lost her employment as a food packer at a catering company due to disqualifying misconduct. Claimant concedes that she failed to follow the normal sign-out procedures at the end of her shift. Claimant was called back to her station by a supervisor and asked why food had been left out in violation of the company policy aimed at preventing bacterial contamination. Claimant reacted by raising her voice, laughing at the supervisor and then leaving the premises. Thereafter, claimant was discharged. It is well settled that a claimant's failure to abide by workplace policies and procedures which may be detrimental to the employer's interest can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Greenberg [Commissioner of Labor], 286 A.D.2d 794, 729 N.Y.S.2d 810 [2001] ). Moreover, disregard of “an employer's reasonable request may constitute insubordination rising to the level of misconduct” (Matter of Holland [Commissioner of Labor], 292 A.D.2d 667, 668, 738 N.Y.S.2d 744 [2002] ), particularly where, as here, claimant had been previously warned about insubordinate behavior (see Matter of Goodrich [Raymond Corp.-Commissioner of Labor], 301 A.D.2d 720, 753 N.Y.S.2d 564 [2003] ). To the extent that claimant's version of the events leading to her dismissal differed from that of the employer, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Monroe [The Sagamore-Commissioner of Labor], 291 A.D.2d 774, 775, 738 N.Y.S.2d 449 [2002] ). Given claimant's admission that she acted improperly, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
ORDERED that the decisions are 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: January 08, 2004
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)