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 Genin C. HERNANDEZ, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed May 3, 2002, which 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 a machine operator after she exceeded the employer's absentee policy. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to disqualifying misconduct. Despite having been suspended from work the prior month pursuant to the employer's progressive disciplinary policy based on her excessive number of absences, claimant thereafter failed to report to work on the day in question because she did not have a babysitter for her children. While recognizing that lack of adequate child care may provide good cause for failing to report for work, the Board found it significant that claimant failed to even ask her husband, who did not have to work that day, to watch his stepchildren despite the fact that she was aware that her job was in jeopardy. Under the circumstances presented here, substantial evidence supports the Board's finding that claimant's absence was not justified and that she engaged in disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Johnson [Roberts], 89 A.D.2d 1050, 456 N.Y.S.2d 109; see also Matter of Vitale [Commissioner of Labor], 263 A.D.2d 758, 692 N.Y.S.2d 850; Matter of Monreale [Commissioner of Labor], 249 A.D.2d 620, 670 N.Y.S.2d 938; cf. Matter of Sunderland [Nassau County Med. Ctr.-Roberts], 121 A.D.2d 779, 503 N.Y.S.2d 191).
ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Thank you for your feedback!
As the largest network of trusted legal brands, we help firms build authority across the platforms consumers and AI systems rely on most. Our network helps attorneys strengthen visibility, credibility, and preference where legal decisions begin.
Decided: November 27, 2002
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)