You are here: / / CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S...

CO-WORKERS’ EGREGIOUS AND LEWD BEHAVIOR, TOGETHER WITH THE EMPLOYER’S INADEQUATE RESPONSE, CONSTITUTED GOOD CAUSE FOR LEAVING EMPLOYMENT.

The Third Department determined that co-workers' egregious, lewd and harassing behavior, combined with the employer's inadequate response, provided good cause for claimant's leaving employment:

 

“Whether a claimant has left employment for good cause so as to qualify for unemployment insurance benefits is a factual issue to be resolved by the Board and its determination will be upheld if supported by substantial evidence” … . The Board was free to, and did, credit claimant's testimony that she did not feel safe or comfortable with continuing her employment after the egregious behavior of her coworker. The record evidence also reflects that claimant had previously reported harassment by another male coworker, who was reprimanded by the employer. In view of this pattern of sexual harassment and the employer's inadequate offer to transfer claimant to a nearby building — where she would still be forced to interact with the service center — substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant left her employment for good cause … . Matter of Labbate (Robert Green Auto & Truck, Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2016 NY Slip Op 02898, 3rd Dept 4-14-16


You might also like
DEPOSITION OF TOWN ASSESSOR PROPERLY ALLOWED IN THIS SELECTIVE REASSESSMENT PROCEEDING.
SKIN CARE SPECIALIST WORKING FOR A SKIN CARE COMPANY WITH A DISPLAY IN A BLOOMINGDALE’S STORE WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SKIN CARE COMPANY AND WAS ENTITLED TO BENEFITS, LATE NOTICE EXCUSED, CLAIMANT FELL ON THE WAY TO THE RESTROOM (THIRD DEPT).
In the Absence of a Colloquy Conducted by the Court, the Circumstances Indicated that Mother Knowingly, Intelligently and Voluntarily Waiver Her Right to Counsel In a Custody Proceeding
DIFFERENCE BETWEEN A SCHEDULE LOSS OF USE AND NONSCHEDULE PERMANENT PARTIAL DISABILITY EXPLAINED (THIRD DEPT).
Lump Sum Settlement with Third Party Barred Transfer of Employer’s Liability for Future Medical Payments to the Special Fund
Hearsay Alone Will Not Support Revocation of Probation/Failure to Pay Restitution Will Not Support Revocation of Probation If Due to an Inability to Pay
Family Court Did Not Inform Respondent of His Rights and Did Not Conduct an Adequate Colloquy—PINS Adjudication Reversed
THE JUDGE SHOULD NOT HAVE DELEGATED THE COURT’S AUTHORITY TO DETERMINE RESTITUTION TO THE PROSECUTOR, MATTER REMITTED FOR A HEARING (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

ATTORNEY WHO HAD PREVIOUSLY PROSECUTED MOTHER FOR ENDANGERING THE WELFARE OF... AMENDMENT TO WORKERS’ COMPENSATION LAW WHICH IMPOSED LIABILITY UPON INSURERS...