You are here: / Unemployment Insurance

ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, DESPITE THE ATTORNEY’S SIGNING A DOCUMENT INDICATING SHE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, an attorney hired to do document review, was an employee of a law firm (Brody) entitled to unemployment insurance benefits, despite the attorney’s signing a document indicating she was an independent contractor:

The record reflects that Brody paid claimant an hourly set wage, required her to work at least 10 hours per day, Monday through Friday, and required her to obtain approval to take time off. Claimant was required to undergo training on how to do the work, was provided with a computer and workspace, and was assigned documents to review. She was, moreover, required to document her hours and meet with her supervisor to review her submitted hours and receive updates on the case. Claimant did not have an independent legal practice or business … .

The foregoing constitutes substantial evidence supporting the Board’s determination that Brody retained sufficient overall control of claimant’s services to establish an employer-employee relationship, notwithstanding evidence in the record that might support a contrary conclusion … . A different result is not compelled by the facts that claimant signed a written agreement labelling her as an independent contractor and believed that she performed in that capacity … . Matter of Philip (Brody–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 05648, Third Dept 8-2-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, DESPITE THE ATTORNEY’S SIGNING A DOCUMENT INDICATING SHE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (THIRD DEPT))/ATTORNEYS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, ATTORNEY HIRED FOR DOCUMENT REVIEW WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS, DESPITE THE ATTORNEY’S SIGNING A DOCUMENT INDICATING SHE WAS AN INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR (THIRD DEPT))

TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT). ​

The Third Department determined a tutor employed by a tutoring service, Mulberry, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Mulberry did not advertise for tutors, but received inquiries directly from potential tutors who heard about Mulberry through various means. It then collected their resumes and notified them when an opening became available. When claimant was notified, Mulberry’s director reviewed his resume and qualifications, verified his certifications and met with him to discuss the details of the tutoring position, including the pay rate, which was set at $40 per hour and was a percentage of the fee that it charged to its clients. After Mulberry matched a tutor with a student, it provided the tutor with a “student profile” containing pertinent information about the student, but it did not dictate the lesson plan, observe the tutoring sessions or oversee the instruction. Once a tutor accepted an assignment, the tutor set up the instructional schedule directly with the student and/or parent and Mulberry did not impose set work hours. A tutor, however, was free to reject an assignment.

Although tutors could conduct tutoring sessions at other locations, most sessions occurred at Mulberry’s learning center where it had books, supplies, computers and equipment available for the tutors to use even though they typically used either their own or their students’ instructional materials. When tutors worked at Mulberry’s learning center, they completed a time sheet or calendar detailing their hours and the students they tutored. Folders that were provided by Mulberry containing student information were maintained at the learning center. Mulberry also provided the tutors with a “tutoring record” to help them keep track of their hours, the students they instructed and the material covered, as well as a monthly invoice form that the tutors could submit to receive payment, which was tendered regardless of whether Mulberry received payment from its clients. Mulberry did not reimburse tutors for expenses, withhold taxes from their compensation or prohibit them from working for others. However, it sometimes assisted in resolving scheduling issues and intervened in the rare case when there was a problem with a student. Moreover, if a tutor had accepted an assignment and then became unavailable for an extended period of time, Mulberry would find a replacement. Significantly, Mulberry labeled the tutors “our teachers” and referred to their instruction as “our lesson plans” in its marketing literature, giving the impression that the tutors were, in fact, Mulberry’s employees.

In view of the foregoing, we find that Mulberry exercised control over important aspects of the tutors’ work notwithstanding its lack of involvement in the actual instruction provided by the tutors. Mulberry was not simply a referral agency, but held itself out as the tutors’ employer and acted as such. Matter of Eidelson (Mulberry Tree Ctr. LLC–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 05645, Third Dept 8-2-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/TUTORS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TUTOR WAS AN EMPLOYEE OF THE TUTORING SERVICE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined a registered nurse who worked for Human Care which provided home health care services was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Human Care maintains a list of registered nurses, designated as field nurse supervisors, who provide home health care services to its patients on an on-call basis. Human Care hired claimant as a field nurse supervisor following an interview and screening of her experience and license credentials. Upon hiring claimant, Human Care required claimant to sign a job summary detailing the various duties and responsibilities of a field nurse supervisor, which included completing clinical and progress notes, informing Human Care’s Director of Patient Services of any changes in a patient’s condition and needs and submitting all required paperwork to the Director within 48 hours of a visit. The job summary further stated that field nurse supervisors reported to the Director and were required to follow Human Care policies and procedures. Claimant was provided with Human Care’s handbook of policies and procedures. With respect to individual assignments, the Director would contact claimant when a client needed services and advise what services were to be provided. Claimant was free to accept or decline any assignment and, if she was unable to complete an assignment that she had accepted, Human Care would find a replacement. Claimant was required to complete and submit a written “base assessment” of the client to the Director for review. Additionally, Human Care set the fee paid to claimant for her services, which was not negotiable, and billed its clients or the clients’ insurance companies for claimant’s services.  Matter of Dillon (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 05386. Third Dept 7-19-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/NURSES (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/HOME HEALTH CARE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, NURSE PROVIDING HOME HEALTH CARE SERVICES WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board, over a two-justice dissent, determined that a courier for a web based delivery service (Postmate) was not an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

… [I]n order to work as a courier or delivery professional for Postmates, claimant and others similarly situated need only download Postmates’ application software platform and provide his or her name, telephone number, Social Security number and driver’s license number; there is no application and no interview. Although Postmates thereafter obtains a criminal background check from a third-party provider and provides an orientation session on how to utilize the application software platform, significantly, claimant and those similarly situated are not thereafter required to report to any supervisor, and they unilaterally retain the unfettered discretion as to whether to ever log on to Postmates’ platform and actually work. When a courier does elect to log on to the platform, indicating his or her availability for deliveries, he or she is free to work as much or little as he or she wants — there is no set work schedule, there is no minimum time requirement that a courier must remain logged on to the platform and there is no minimum or maximum requirement with respect to the number of deliveries a courier must perform. In fact, once logged on to the platform, a courier may decline to do anything. When a customer requests a delivery using Postmates’ platform, the platform identifies the closest available courier(s) and sends basic information about the delivery request. Couriers, however, may accept, reject or ignore a delivery request, without penalty. Moreover, while logged on to Postmates’ platform, couriers maintain the freedom to simultaneously work for other companies, including Postmates’ direct competitors. Further, they are free to choose the mode of transportation they wish to use for deliveries, they provide and maintain their own transportation, they choose the route they wish to take for the delivery, they are not required to adhere to a stringent delivery schedule, they are not required to wear a uniform, they are not provided any identification card or logo, they are only paid for the deliveries they complete and they are not reimbursed for any of their delivery-related expenses. Matter of Vega (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 04610, Third Dept 6-21-18

​UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))/COURIERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERY SERVICE (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, COURIER FOR A WEB BASED DELIVERY SERVICE NOT AN EMPLOYEE (THIRD DEPT))

TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined a that Tender Age PT (TAPT), which provided supplemental education services to the Department of Education, was not required to make additional unemployment insurance contributions based on remuneration paid to claimant, a behavior analyst therapist who received assignments from TAPT:

TAPT’s overall control over important aspects of the service professionals’ work is lacking largely because the policies and procedures related thereto are “dictated by statutes and regulations governing the provision of supplemental educational and related services”… . Indeed, although TAPT collected resumes and interviewed candidates wishing to be placed on its registry, this was primarily for the purpose of insuring that they met the requirements imposed by the Department of Health with regard to certification and licensing. Once candidates became approved service professionals, TAPT offered assignments based upon availability and other criteria, but the service professionals were free to reject an assignment or work for other agencies. If an assignment was accepted, TAPT supplied the service professionals with documentation furnished by the client, including the child’s treatment plan and a prescription for the service, as well as other legally mandated documents. The service professionals then worked directly with the child and his or her parent, providing all necessary equipment and materials, and scheduling appointments without any involvement or oversight by TAPT, usually at the child’s home, school or day care center.

The compensation paid to the service professionals was negotiable, but was limited by the amount that TAPT received from its clients. Although the service professionals prepared daily work logs, as well as periodic status reports, on preprinted forms that they submitted to TAPT, this was done in order to comply with the requirements of TAPT’s clients. In accordance with such requirements, they also submitted monthly invoices containing treatment information that TAPT compared with the daily logs. They would not, however, get paid until TAPT received payment from its clients. Matter of Giordano (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 03573, Third Dept 5-17-18

​UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT))/EDUCATIONAL SERVICES (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, TENDER AGE PT (TAPT), WHICH PROVIDED SUPPLEMENTAL EDUCATION SERVICES TO THE DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION, WAS NOT THE EMPLOYER OF CLAIMANT, A BEHAVIORAL ANALYST THERAPIST WHO RECEIVED WORK ASSIGNMENTS FROM TAPT (THIRD DEPT))

,

CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined that the New York City Department of Education had demonstrated it had provided claimant, a substitute teacher, with reasonable assurance she would continue to be employed in the following school year. Her application for unemployment insurance benefits over the summer should, therefore, have been denied:

… [W]e find that the Board’s decision is not supported by substantial evidence. Initially, in reaching its conclusion, the Board essentially imposed a requirement that a reasonable assurance be a guarantee of earnings during the following school year, an interpretation that finds no support in the statute or case law. … Here, the 153 assignments that claimant obtained directly through school administrators during the 2015-2016 school year exceeded the 145 needed to satisfy the 90% threshold and should have been counted in determining whether she received a reasonable assurance of continued employment.

In addition to the June 2016 letter setting forth the basic terms of claimant’s continued employment during the 2016-2017 school year, the NYCDOE’s witness testified that no changes were anticipated with respect to the budget, salary or number of students and paraprofessionals needed for the upcoming school year. He further stated that 14% of jobs go unfilled, providing ample opportunity for substitutes to find openings. In view of the foregoing, the record establishes that the NYCDOE provided claimant a reasonable assurance of continued employment under Labor Law § 590 (11), thereby precluding her from receiving benefits … . Matter of Enman (New York City Dept. of Educ.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 03416, Third Dept 5-10-18

​UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS, CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS  (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE,  CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS  (THIRD DEPT))/SUBSTITUTE TEACHERS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, A SUBSTITUTE TEACHER, RECEIVED REASONABLE ASSURANCE OF EMPLOYMENT IN THE FOLLOWING SCHOOL YEAR (LABOR LAW 590), SHE WAS THEREFORE NOT ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS  (THIRD DEPT))

CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant, who delivered baked goods for the employer under a distribution contract, was an employee entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

Initially, we are unpersuaded by the company’s contention that the Board erred in determining that claimant was an employee as a matter of law pursuant to Labor Law § 511 (1) (b). Labor Law § 511 (1) (b) defines “[e]mployment” for unemployment insurance purposes to include “any service by a person for an employer . . . as an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing . . . bakery products.” According to the company, claimant did not earn a commission but earned revenue upon selling the bakery products that he purchased at prices set by him. The record, however, supports the Board’s finding that the actual relationship between the parties did not constitute that of a buyer and seller.  …

Additionally, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding that the company exercised sufficient supervision, direction and control over claimant to establish an employer-employee relationship under common-law principles. The company retained numerous rights under the distribution agreement, including the right to set the price of the products sold to claimant and the right to negotiate with chain outlets to determine price and terms of sale, and it retained the authority to sell distribution rights purchased by claimant or perform his delivery obligations under certain circumstances. Claimant was further required to deliver fresh products and remove stale products in a defined area, sell any additional products provided by the company, cooperate with its marketing programs, remit settlement information to it each week, maintain certain chain outlet customers even if not profitable to him and not engage in any business activity that directly competed with the company or interfered with his obligations under the distribution agreement. In addition, claimant was interviewed by the company, relied on certain equipment and supplies provided by it, was paid on a weekly basis and was trained, instructed, supervised and monitored by a company manager regarding his deliveries. Matter of Cowan (Bimbo Foods Bakeries Distrib., Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 02229, Third Dept 3-29-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/LABOR LAW (LABOR LAW 511, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DELIVERIES  (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT, WHO DISTRIBUTED BAKED GOODS UNDER A DISTRIBUTION CONTRACT, WAS AN EMPLOYEE ENTITLED TO UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))

AUTO DAMAGE APPRAISER NOT AN EMPLOYEE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department, reversing the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, determined claimant appraiser was not an employee of SCA Enterprises and was not entitled to unemployment insurance benefits:

SCA Enterprises Inc. is engaged in the business of connecting appraisers with its clients, which are insurance carriers, to assist in processing automobile damage claims across the United States. Although it conducts the majority of its business through designated franchisees who perform appraisals in specific geographic regions, it also utilizes independent appraisers in areas that are not covered by its franchise agreements. SCA uses a computerized operating system, known as the dashboard, to match franchisees and independent appraisers with assignments that are posted by its insurance carriers. Claimant, doing business as New Hartford Appraisal Service, is an independent appraiser who obtained assignments through SCA and filed a claim for unemployment insurance benefits after those assignments ended. …

… SCA does not withhold taxes from the compensation that it pays to the independent appraisers, reimburse them for expenses or provide them with fringe benefits, training, equipment, tools, uniforms, business cards, supplies or office space. It also does not supervise their work, require them to attend meetings or review their final appraisal reports. Moreover, the independent appraisers set their own work schedules, are free to work for competitors, may take time off without SCA’s permission and refuse assignments without penalty. The requirements of the assignment, including the deadline by which the final report must be submitted, are dictated by the insurance carriers, not SCA. If there is a problem with an appraisal report, SCA simply passes the information on to the independent appraiser. The provisions of the service contract that the independent appraisers sign with SCA designate them as independent contractors and underscore their autonomy. Matter of Courto (SCA Enters. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 01970, Third Dept 3-22-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (AUTO DAMAGE APPRAISER NOT AN EMPLOYEE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))/APPRAISER (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, AUTO DAMAGE APPRAISER NOT AN EMPLOYEE, UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE APPEAL BOARD REVERSED (THIRD DEPT))

,

CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined claimant was properly denied unemployment insurance benefits for the first seven weeks of a strike because an alternative work site was available:

Pursuant to Labor Law § 592 (1), unemployment insurance benefits are suspended during the first consecutive seven weeks of a strike or industrial controversy beginning the day after a claimant ceases working due to a strike, unless there has been a peremptory lockout by the employer … . The record reflects that claimant did not work during the relevant period due to the strike, and that he refused his manager’s directive to report to an alternate work site that was open, staffed by supervisors and operational during the strike. Thus, substantial evidence supports the Board’s determination to suspend his benefits pursuant to Labor Law § 592 (1) … . The record also demonstrates that the employer did not, at any point, institute a work stoppage or lockout preventing employees from working but, rather, the union initiated the strike and work stoppage, in which claimant participated. Further, as the Board correctly determined, the employer’s decision to consolidate operations due to the strike and to temporarily assign claimant to a nearby work site did not constitute a “lockout[]” … , which only occurs upon “the refusal by an employer to furnish available work to [its] regular employees” … . Matter of Parron (Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 01696, Second Dept 3-15-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (STRIKES, CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT))/EMPLOYMENT LAW (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, STRIKES, CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT))/STRIKES (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, CLAIMANT PROPERLY DENIED UNEMPLOYMENT BENEFITS DURING FIRST SEVEN WEEKS OF A STRIKE, ALTERNATIVE WORK SITE AVAILABLE (THIRD DEPT))

ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT).

The Third Department determined that, although the employer had cause to fire the claimant for tardiness and absences, substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding her tardiness and absences did disqualify her from receiving unemployment benefits. Although claimant had been informed that her tardiness and absences were not acceptable, she was never informed that she could be fired as a result. Claimant was not fired until after she put in a claim for workers’ compensation benefits after an injury at work:

… “[W]hether a claimant’s actions rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct is a factual issue for the Board to resolve, and not every mistake, exercise of poor judgment or discharge for cause will rise to the level of misconduct”… . The Board’s determination in this regard will not be disturbed if it is supported by substantial evidence … .

The record reveals that, although claimant’s tardiness and attendance problems began in December 2014, she was not served with any notices of discipline until May 4, 2015, just after her work-related injury. Claimant’s immediate supervisor testified that she instructed claimant on the proper procedure for entering her work hours into the computer system and told her that she had to be at work between the hours of 9:00 a.m. and 5:00 p.m. In fact, claimant received emails in December 2014 and March 2015 reminding her of these requirements. She was not, however, advised that adverse employment consequences would result if she did not follow the proper protocol. Likewise, the notices of discipline did not set forth the disciplinary measures that would be taken if claimant continued to engaged in the objectionable behavior. Furthermore, claimant’s termination occurred shortly after she was placed on suspension without affording her an opportunity to correct her behavior … . Under the circumstances presented, although the employer had cause to discharge claimant, she did not exhibit a willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest rising to the level of disqualifying misconduct … . Matter of Jelic (Ama Research Labs. Inc.–Commissioner of Labor), 2018 NY Slip Op 00588, Third Dept 2-1-18

UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE (ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/DISQUALIFYING MISCONDUCT (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/TARDINESS (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (THIRD DEPT))/ABSENCES (UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE, ALTHOUGH THE EMPLOYER HAD CAUSE TO FIRE CLAIMANT FOR TARDINESS AND ABSENCES, CLAIMANT’S ACTIONS DID NOT DISQUALIFY HER FROM RECEIVING UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE BENEFITS (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 © 2025 New York Appellate Digest, Inc.
Site by CurlyHost | Privacy Policy