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 Melchisedek SHABAZZ-ALLAH, Appellant. The College of New Rochelle, Respondent. John E. Sweeney, as Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 30, 1997, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from his position as a security guard after an incident wherein he directed obscene and angry language at another employee and then twice refused his supervisor's orders to file an incident report in regard thereto. We affirm the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant lost his employment under disqualifying circumstances. This court has held that an employee's disrespectful conduct and vulgar language may constitute disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Schneider [Garden City Union Free School Dist.-Hudacs], 201 A.D.2d 811, 607 N.Y.S.2d 501) as has the refusal to comply with a supervisor's reasonable request (see, Matter of Talyansky [Magna Prods. Corp.-Sweeney], 236 A.D.2d 728, 654 N.Y.S.2d 697, lv. denied 90 N.Y.2d 806, 663 N.Y.S.2d 511, 686 N.E.2d 223). Claimant's assertion that his discharge was motivated by the employer's bias against him due to his Islamic religious practices, created an issue of credibility for resolution by the Board (see, id.). Substantial evidence supports the Board's ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct and that he made willful misrepresentations in order to obtain benefits, having stated on his application that his employment was discontinued due to “lack of work”.
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: February 19, 1998
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)