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 John K. PERRY, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed February 7, 2000, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant was employed as a human resource specialist for the employer. Claimant was discharged from his employment after it was discovered that he used his computer terminal to frequently access pornographic websites during working hours. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he engaged in misconduct. Claimant maintained that his behavior was nonvolitional given his “impulse control disorder”. Although claimant submitted a letter from his psychologist indicating that he suffered from posttraumatic stress disorder displayed in the form of, inter alia, obsessive behavior such as accessing pornographic websites, the evidence fails to establish that he was unable to control this impulse while working (see, e.g., Matter of Moore [County of Monroe-Hartnett], 144 A.D.2d 123, 124-125, 534 N.Y.S.2d 457). Inasmuch as claimant disregarded the employer's policy against accessing inappropriate websites at work, substantial evidence supports the Board's decision that claimant lost his employment due to disqualifying misconduct (see generally, Matter of Cordova [Commissioner of Labor], 277 A.D.2d 623, 715 N.Y.S.2d 551; Matter of Gonzalez [Sweeney], 247 A.D.2d 748, 669 N.Y.S.2d 93).
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: May 10, 2001
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)