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 Jacqueline V. MORGAN, Appellant. New York City Department of Probation, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed December 4, 2006, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant, a probation officer, worked for the employer from February 2000 until June 2006, when she was fired for chronic lateness. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied her ensuing claim for unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that her employment had been terminated for misconduct. Claimant now appeals.
We affirm. An employee's failure, in the face of prior warnings, to abide by an employer's policy concerning tardiness can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Valenta [Commissioner of Labor], 38 A.D.3d 1070, 1070, 833 N.Y.S.2d 263 [2007]; Matter of Van Beek, 32 A.D.3d 622, 622, 820 N.Y.S.2d 182 [2006] ). Here, claimant had been warned numerous times about her continued lateness. Further, claimant had entered into a stipulation of settlement resolving disciplinary charges against her, pursuant to which she was required to give advance notice before using any sick time and furnish medical documentation following her use of such sick time. Nevertheless, in April 2006, claimant was tardy for work due to medical reasons on four consecutive days. The record reveals that she offered no medical documentation for three of those days and, with respect to the one day where she did provide a doctor's note, she failed to notify the employer in advance that she was going to be late. In view of the foregoing, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant's employment had been terminated for misconduct and, as such, she was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits (see Matter of Valenta [Commissioner of Labor], supra at 1071, 833 N.Y.S.2d 263).
Claimant's remaining contentions, to the extent not specifically addressed herein, have been examined and found to be without merit.
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: July 26, 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)