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 G. MANNO, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed October 6, 2003, which, upon reconsideration, adhered to its prior decision ruling that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruling that claimant, a postal employee, was discharged from his employment due to disqualifying misconduct. It is well settled that violating a known policy of an employer can constitute disqualifying misconduct (see Matter of Barcene [Commissioner of Labor], 6 A.D.3d 855, 774 N.Y.S.2d 439 [2004]; Matter of Perry [Commissioner of Labor], 283 A.D.2d 754, 724 N.Y.S.2d 133 [2001] ), as can offensive behavior in the workplace (see Matter of Ferro [Commissioner of Labor], 283 A.D.2d 828, 725 N.Y.S.2d 721 [2001] ). Here, the record establishes that claimant showed coworkers what appeared to be a sexually explicit picture on his computer screen. When one coworker attempted to walk away, claimant physically tried to stop her and repeatedly attempted to persuade her to return. Testimony on behalf of the employer established that claimant was specifically informed that inappropriate use of the employer's computer was prohibited. Although claimant denies that he was responsible for the image being on the computer screen and asserts that he was never informed of the employer's policy regarding use of the computer, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Barcene [Commissioner of Labor], supra ). Claimant's remaining contentions have been considered and rejected as without merit. Accordingly, we find no reason to disturb the Board's decision.
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: June 17, 2004
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)