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 Glenn D. SMITH, Appellant. Rochester Institute of Technology, Respondent. Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed September 24, 2008, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant, who was employed as a heating and air conditioning technician at a university, was terminated from his employment after he failed to follow his supervisor's request to meet with him on two consecutive days. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for benefits on the ground that he was terminated due to misconduct, prompting this appeal.
We affirm. “An employee's failure to comply with an employer's reasonable request may constitute insubordination rising to the level of disqualifying misconduct” (Matter of Guagliardo [Commissioner of Labor], 27 A.D.3d 866, 867 [2006] [citations omitted]; accord Matter of Box [Commissioner of Labor], 50 A.D.3d 1431, 1432 [2008] ). Here, the employer's representatives testified that, despite having received prior written warnings that continued acts of insubordination could result in his termination, claimant failed to follow a directive from his supervisor to meet with him to discuss his work assignments on two consecutive days. To the extent that claimant denied that his supervisor requested the meetings, this presented a credibility issue for the Board to resolve (see Matter of Atson [Commissioner of Labor], 64 A.D.3d 1065, 1065-1066 [2009] ). Inasmuch as the employer's request was reasonable and claimant did not demonstrate a compelling reason for refusing to comply, we discern no basis for disturbing the Board's determination (see Matter of Miner [Commissioner of Labor], 49 A.D.3d 1128, 1129 [2008]; Matter of Lambert [Commissioner of Labor], 34 A.D.3d 948, 948 [2006] ).
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: December 17, 2009
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)