You are here: / / After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying...

After Hours Off-Premises Fight With Co-Employee Can Constitute Disqualifying Misconduct

The Third Department determined that a fight with a co-employee after hours at a bar could constitute disqualifying misconduct if the fight was connected with claimant’s employment.  Because the Board, which granted unemployment benefits, based its determination on where the fight occurred, the matter was remitted:

“Fighting with a coworker, regardless of who initiates the confrontation, has been held to constitute misconduct disqualifying a claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits” … . Claimant, moreover, was aware that the employer considered fighting to be a major infraction and that it could result in his termination. It is true that the fight occurred at a bar outside of work hours but, in that regard, a claimant is disqualified from receiving benefits whenever his or her misconduct occurs “in connection with” his or her employment (Labor Law § 593 [3]…). Claimant was accordingly obliged, “even during his off-duty hours, to honor the standards of behavior which his employer has a right to expect of him and . . . he may be denied unemployment benefits as a result of misconduct in connection with his work if he fails to live up to this obligation” … . Therefore, the relevant question is not where or when the attack occurred, but whether it was connected to claimant’s employment … . Inasmuch as “the Board failed to address this relevant issue, its decision must be reversed and the matter remitted for further development of the record” … . Matter of Moniz (Nucor Steel Auburn, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 02534, 3rd Dept 3-26-15

 

You might also like
ALTHOUGH THE SANITARY CODE DID NOT REQUIRE DEFENDANT SUMMER CAMP TO HAVE A LIFEGUARD, THE CODE DID REQUIRE THE CAMP TO OFFER SOME SUPERVISION OF PERSONS USING THE SWIMMING POOL; THEREFORE THE SUMMER CAMP OWED PLAINTIFF’S DECEDENT, WHO SUFFERED A MEDICAL EMERGENCY IN THE POOL, A DUTY OF CARE (THIRD DEPT).
PLAINTIFF WAS NOT IN AN AREA IN WHICH FALLING OBJECTS COULD BE ANTICIPATED, SO THE LABOR LAW 240(1) AND 241(6) CAUSES OF ACTION SHOULD HAVE BEEN DISMISSED; PLAINTIFF WAS STRUCK BY A BOARD INTENTIONALLY THROWN INTO THE EXCAVATED AREA WHERE HE WAS WORKING; THE LABOR LAW 200 AND NEGLIGENCE CAUSES OF ACTION PROPERLY SURVIVED (THIRD DEPT).
Failure to Fully Inform About Postrelease Supervision Required Reversal
Claimant, Who Worked Pursuant to a Consulting Agreement, Was Not an Employee
In-Court Stipulation Enforceable Even Though Party Not Represented by Counsel​ 
People Did Not Meet Their Burden of Demonstrating Developmentally Disabled Respondent, Who Had Been In the Care and Custody of the OPWDD Since His Acquittal of a Criminal Charge By Reason of Mental Disease or Defect, Was “Mentally Ill”—Respondent’s Release Was Appropriate
Disclosure of Appraisal Documents Not Entitled to Conditional Immunity Even If Prepared Solely for Litigation/No Other Way for Claimants to Obtain Relevant Evidence
DEFENDANT, BASED ON ITS STATUS AS BAILOR OF THE MACHINE WHICH ALLEGEDLY INJURED PLAINTIFF, MAY BE LIABLE UNDER BREACH OF WARRANTY AND STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY CAUSES OF ACTION (THIRD DEPT).

Categories

Sign Up for the Mailing List to Be Notified When the Site Is Updated.

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.

Copyright © 2026 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

Questions of Fact Raised Whether Plaintiff’s Infant-Daughter’s Physical... Questions of Fact Whether Name Added to Bank Account Created a Convenience Account...