Maryland Employment Lawyer Blog
As regular readers know, I handle numerous unemployment appeals on behalf of persons who have either been denied unemployment benefits on the grounds that they engaged in misconduct or gross misconduct or voluntarily resigned their job. I thought I would simply list a few of my recent cases to give you an idea of the types of issues that sometimes arise in unemployment appeals hearings:
* Claimant was disqualified for gross misconduct for allegedly being a no-call/no-show on two occasions. At the hearing, the employer failed to produce any evidence to refute the claimant’s testimony that he had, in fact, called in on both days where he had not come to work in compliance with the employer’s policy. The gross misconduct finding was reversed.
* Claimant was disqualified for gross misconduct for allegedly fighting with her manager and walking off the job without permission. At the hearing, the manager admitted that he instigated the fight and began cursing at the claimant, and a coworker admitted giving the claimant permission to leave the job early. The gross misconduct finding was reversed.
* Claimant was disqualified for gross misconduct for allegedly violating the company’s lateness policy on three occasions. At the hearing, the claimant proved that he had only been late without permission on two occasions, one of which was a family medical emergency, and the other was only one-minute late. The gross misconduct finding was reversed.
* Claimant was disqualified for voluntary resignation where he submitted his resignation letter after the employer changed his schedule. At the hearing, the claimant proved that the employer was forcing him to work nights thereby leaving him with nobody to watch his children, as his wife’s job required her to work nights. The hearing examiner found that the claimant had good cause for resigning and allowed full benefits.
* Claimant was disqualified for allegedly violating company’s ethical rules. At the hearing, claimant demonstrated that she was never made aware of the ethical rule that she allegedly violated, nor was she ever warned not to engage in the underlying conduct. The gross misconduct finding was reversed.