Majority
Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 3, 2014, which ruled that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits.
Claimant worked for almost seven years as a senior speech language pathologist for the employer until she was terminated in May 2013. The termination resulted from her running afoul of the employer’s written policy prohibiting employees from posting on social media “during work hours, unless for specific and approved business purposes.” The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board thereafter determined that claimant was entitled to receive unemployment insurance benefits because, in its view, she had not lost her job due to disqualifying misconduct. The employer now appeals.
The question of whether a claimant engaged in actions sufficient to disqualify him or her from receiving unemployment insurance benefits is a factual one for the Board to resolve, “and its determination will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence” (Matter of Jaiyesimi [ISS Action Inc.— Commissioner of Labor], 114 AD3d 983 , 983 [2014]; see Matter of Morris [Lenox Hill Neighborhood House Inc. —Commissioner of Labor], 110 AD3d 1333 , 1334 [2013]). Not every discharge for cause rises to the level of misconduct, which is defined as “a willful and wanton disregard of the employer’s interest” (Mat
Lahtinen, J.P., McCarthy, Rose, Lynch and Clark, JJ., concur.
Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.
Cases cited
- In re Jaiyesimi 114 AD3d 983 at 983 p. 1273
- In re the Claim of Morris 110 AD3d 1333 at 1334 p. 1273
- In re the Claim of Rahaman 101 AD3d 1206 at 1207 p. 1274
- In re the Claim of Nangreave 107 AD3d 1211 at 1212 p. 1274