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 Ellen L. HEPPEHAMER, Appellant. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed June 9, 2008, which, upon reconsideration, ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because she lost her employment due to misconduct.
Whether a claimant has lost employment through disqualifying misconduct is a factual determination to be made by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board and its decision will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence (see Matter of Rey-Calderon [Commissioner of Labor], 60 A.D.3d 1124, 1124, 874 N.Y.S.2d 332 [2009]; Matter of Piervencenti [Crest/Good Mfg. Co., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 39 A.D.3d 1108, 1108-1109, 834 N.Y.S.2d 404 [2007] ). Rude, disruptive or insubordinate behavior has been held to be disqualifying conduct, particularly where, as here, a claimant has been previously warned about such behavior (see Matter of Auguste [Commissioner of Labor], 61 A.D.3d 1242, 1242-1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 470 [2009]; Matter of Musac [Commissioner of Labor], 50 A.D.3d 1428, 1428, 857 N.Y.S.2d 302 [2008] ). Claimant was discharged after a coworker complained that claimant made derogatory comments toward her, which included the use of profanity; claimant also expressed that the coworker was not needed in the area and should do less desirable work, remarking on the disparity in their salaries. The record further reflects that claimant had been suspended for creating a hostile work environment in the past and had been afforded a “last chance agreement” pursuant to which claimant acknowledged that, if she repeated such behavior, her employment would be terminated. As such, the Board's finding that claimant engaged in disqualifying behavior was supported by substantial evidence. The fact that claimant denied having made the statements to her coworker raised an issue of credibility for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Auguste [Commissioner of Labor], 61 A.D.3d at 1243, 878 N.Y.S.2d 470; Matter of Musac [Commissioner of Labor], 50 A.D.3d at 1428, 857 N.Y.S.2d 302).
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: November 25, 2009
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)