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 Frank P. PERRETTI, Respondent. New York City Transit Authority, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed November 10, 1999, which, inter alia, ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant was suspended from his employment as a sheet metal mechanic for the New York City Transit Authority as a result of a physical altercation with a fellow employee on November 29, 1995. After filing a grievance, claimant and the employer entered into a stipulation whereby claimant agreed to a 30-day suspension without pay. In addition, claimant agreed to enroll in and cooperate with an employee assistance program. When claimant attempted to return to work at the end of his 30 day suspension, the employer sent him for a psychiatric evaluation and, despite testing negative for alcohol or substance abuse, required him to complete the employee assistance program without pay before he was permitted to return to work. Claimant was not permitted to return to work until the completion of the alcohol treatment program in July 1996. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits during his 30 day suspension, but entitled to benefits during the time that he was enrolled in the alcohol treatment program. Contrary to the employer's contentions, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
The record indicates that claimant had signed the stipulation with the understanding that he could return to work immediately upon the conclusion of his suspension period. Claimant's attempts to return to work were frustrated by the employer's additional requirements that he undergo a psychiatric evaluation and alcohol counseling. To the extent that the employer asserts that claimant was not ready, willing and able to work pursuant to Labor Law § 591(2), we note that any obstacle in this regard was caused by the employer's insistence that claimant attend an alcohol counseling program despite his negative history of any alcohol abuse (cf., Matter of Graif [Commissioner of Labor], 250 A.D.2d 1012, 673 N.Y.S.2d 261).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
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)