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 Bibi S. WALLI, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed March 23, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because her employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was discharged from her employment as cardiac technician after an acrimonious telephone call to her manager complaining about her receipt of a written warning for failure to follow proper call-in procedures. In the course of the conversation, claimant threatened to sue the manager and the employer. Claimant had previously been warned about unprofessional and insubordinate behavior. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ultimately ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the ground that she was terminated for misconduct.
We affirm. The record contains substantial evidence to support the Board's ruling that claimant was guilty of disqualifying misconduct. The proof indicates that she was insubordinate and verbally abusive to her manager (see, Matter of Marquez [New York City Dept. of Personnel-Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 926, 693 N.Y.S.2d 346; Matter of Cuevas [Sweeney], 246 A.D.2d 718, 667 N.Y.S.2d 502). Although claimant asserts that she was being harassed by the employer and denies speaking to her manager in a loud or abusive fashion, the contrary testimony presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see, Matter of Bradley [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 649, 671 N.Y.S.2d 190). Finally, while claimant maintains that all disputes have been settled between her and the employer, the existence of such an agreement would not preclude the Board from determining the factual basis for claimant's discharge (see, Matter of Caplan [Sweeney], 238 A.D.2d 660, 655 N.Y.S.2d 676).
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 21, 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)