You are here: / / Factory-Work Packaging Yogurt Was Not “Suitable Employment”...

Factory-Work Packaging Yogurt Was Not “Suitable Employment” for a Skilled Carpenter

The Third Department reversed the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board’s determination claimant was not eligible for unemployment insurance benefits because he refused suitable employment.  Claimant is a skilled carpenter.  He refused a yogurt-packaging job in a factory.  The yogurt-packaging job was not, under the circumstances, “suitable employment” for the claimant:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 593 (2), a claimant who refuses “an offer of employment for which he or she is reasonably fitted by training and experience” will be disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits … . Significantly, a “claimant need not accept every job offered but, rather[,] only those job offers which bear a reasonable relationship to [the] claimant’s skills” … . Here, it is undisputed that claimant was skilled in finish carpentry and had no experience working in a factory. Consequently, substantial evidence does not support the Board’s decision that he refused an offer of suitable employer … . The Board’s decision, in fact, runs contrary to a similar case in which the Board awarded benefits to another claimant who worked at the millwork company as a skilled craftsman and refused the same offer to work as a packager in a yogurt factory … . In view of the foregoing, the Board’s decision must be reversed. Matter of Reisen (Commissioner of Labor), 2015 NY Slip Op 05560, 3rd Dept 6-25-15

 

You might also like
DEFENDANT OFFERED TWO NON-NEGLIGENT EXPLANATIONS FOR THE REAR-END COLLISION SUFFICIENT TO DEFEAT PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT, A WAIVED AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE MAY BE CONSIDERED IN OPPOSITION TO SUMMARY JUDGMENT WHERE THE MOVING PARTY IS NOT SURPRISED AND HAS AN OPPORTUNITY TO RESPOND (THIRD DEPT).
ALTHOUGH THE SEQRA REVIEW OF THE PROPOSED MODIFICATION OF A LANDFILL WAS PROPERLY DONE, SUPREME COURT SHOULD NOT HAVE DETERMINED THAT NEARBY RESIDENTS DID NOT HAVE STANDING TO CONTEST THE RULING (THIRD DEPT).
QUESTION OF FACT WHETHER SNOW-REMOVAL CONTRACTOR CREATED THE ICE CONDITION WHERE PLAINTIFF FELL.
Elderly Patient’s Fall from an Examining Table Implicated a Duty of Care Which Takes Into Account Patient’s Infirmities/Elderly and Infirm Patient’s Fall from Examining Table Sounds in Medical Malpractice, Not Ordinary Negligence
INSURANCE BROKER ENGAGED IN UNTRUSTWORTHY CONDUCT STEMMING FROM A MISLEADING AD FOR VIATICAL SETTLEMENT AGREEMENTS AND WAS PROPERLY FINED.
FINDING THAT PETITIONER’S BACK INJURY WAS NOT RELATED TO THE ACCIDENT WAS NOT SUPPORTED BY THE EXPERT TESTIMONY (THIRD DEPT).
ELIMINATING THE LONGSTANDING PRACTICE OF REIMBURSING RETIREES’ MEDICARE PART B PREMIUMS IS AN ISSUE THAT MUST BE NEGOTIATED WITH CURRENT EMPLOYEES; PERB DETERMINATION ANNULLED (THIRD DEPT). ​
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE EXPERIENCE RATINGS PROPERLY TRANSFERRED TO NEW BUSINESS ENTITIES DOING THE SAME WORK, EMPLOYING SOME OF THE SAME PEOPLE, AND OPERATING FROM THE SAME ADDRESS.

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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy

“Extreme and Outrageous Conduct” Is Not an Element of “Negligent... An Assignment of a Note, Which Was Silent About Whether the Assignment of the...