Terminating the Employment Relationship

Thus , the term “misconduct,” as used in the Unemployment Insurance Code, is limited to conduct that evinces a willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interest such that the employee engaged in a deliberate violation or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee. Misconduct also includes careless or negligent behavior of such a degree or recurrence that the employee has an intentional or substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s d uties and obligations to his employer. 407 In Davis v. California Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board 408 , a nurse, Marion Davis, was terminated for administering only half the dosage of a painkiller prescribed for a patient in her care. The hospital’s rule r equired nurses to consult with a doctor before altering any prescription. Davis only consulted with a head nurse. Patients in the past had complained that Davis did not administer proper dosages. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling that Davis engaged in misconduct and was not eligible for unemployment benefits. The court reasoned that Davis knew of the hospital’s rule for changing dosages, and deliberately did not consult a doctor, but instead consulted a head nurse, knowing that she was violating the hospital’s policy. The court concluded that Davis was terminated for misconduct and that denial of benefits was proper. In a similar case involving misconduct by the terminated employee, in Agnone v. Hansen 409 , a nursing home housekeeper, Stephanie Agnone, was terminated for snapping at a co-worker and failing to clean the nursing home bathrooms after being directed to do so. Agnone also had a history of unsatisfactory performance. The Court of Appeal upheld the trial court’s ruling that Ag none engaged in misconduct and was not eligible for unemployment benefits. The court reasoned that Agnone’s work was generally unsatisfactory and she had been admonished on many previous occasions. She compounded her poor performance by responding to a co-worker in a coarse and fractious manner. The court concluded that Agnone was capable of performing the tasks assigned to her, and that her failure to do so was careless and negligent. The court further concluded that Agnone’s degree of carelessness e vinced a substantial disregard for the employer’s interest and her obligations to her employer. By contrast to the definition above, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, and inadvertent conduct do not amount to misconduct that would disqualify an employee from unemployment compensation (unless actions of the employee are severe and show a repeated disregard for reasonable rules and procedures). 410

Terminating the Employment Relationship ©2022 (s) Liebert Cassidy Whitmore 130