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 Sandra HARRIS, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 11, 1998, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she voluntarily left her employment without good cause.
The record establishes that claimant received a performance evaluation on August 7, 1997 indicating that her performance met the employer's expectations but that she needed to accelerate her pace and output. Dissatisfied with the evaluation and particularly disagreeing with the supervisor's reference to a series of alleged meetings with claimant to discuss her work performance, claimant resigned on August 9, 1997 (effective August 29, 1997). On August 27, 1999, the disputed wording in the evaluation was changed in accordance with claimant's request. Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant's hasty resignation was for personal and noncompelling reasons and without good cause. It has been held that neither criticism from nor conflicts with one's supervisor constitute good cause for leaving employment (see, Matter of Wolfenburg [Sweeney], 242 A.D.2d 827, 828, 662 N.Y.S.2d 276; Matter of Mielewski [Sweeney], 227 A.D.2d 805, 806, 642 N.Y.S.2d 437; Matter of Ehrenberg [Doubleday Book & Music Clubs-Hudacs], 197 A.D.2d 734, 602 N.Y.S.2d 441). Despite claimant's assertion that she could no longer trust her supervisor, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
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: September 16, 1999
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)