A-750-2147
A-750- 2147 Index 1020.15
NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION
ADJUDICATION SERVICES OFFICE
July, 2013
INTERPRETATION
SERVICE-BENEFIT CLAIMS
HEARINGS AND
APPEALS
Referee Hearing,
Right to
Delay in Discharge
The fact that an employer waited a year after the final incident to discharge the claimant is not controlling as the employer waited until after the legal process ran its course to discharge the claimant for misconduct.
A.B. 564,093
The Department of Labor issued the initial
determination disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits, effective May
26, 2011, on the basis that the claimant voluntarily separated from employment without
good cause; disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits effective May
26, 2011, on the basis that the claimant lost employment through misconduct in
connection with that employment and holding that the wages paid to the claimant
by EPIC SECURITY CORP prior to May 26, 2011, cannot be used toward the
establishment of a claim for benefits. The claimant requested a hearing. The
Administrative Law Judge held a hearing at which all parties were accorded a
full opportunity to be heard and at which testimony was taken. There were
appearances by the claimant and on behalf of the employer. By decision filed
February 21, 2012 (A.L.J. Case No. 012-01450), the Administrative Law Judge
sustained the initial determination that the claimant voluntarily separated
from employment without good cause, and overruled the determination that the
claimant lost employment through misconduct in connection with employment. The
claimant appealed insofar as the voluntary quit determination was sustained and
the employer appealed insofar as the misconduct determination was overruled. Based
on the record and testimony in this case, the Board makes the following
FINDINGS
OF FACT: The claimant was employed as a security guard for eight years, until
May 25, 2011. The claimant was aware that a security guard license issued by
the State of New York was a job requirement. The claimant was arrested on May
2, 2010 for felony assault, an act committed while on the job. On May 24, 2011
the claimant pled guilty to assault in the second degree, a felony. He was
sentenced to five years probation. Consequently, the State of New York would
not renew the claimant's security guard license and the employer discharged the
claimant.
OPINION:
The credible evidence establishes the claimant was discharged as a result of a
felony committed on the job during the course of employment. The claimant's
plea of guilty conclusively establishes his guilt. The claimant's criminal act
committed on the job is clearly misconduct in connection with employment. The
fact that the employer waited to discharge the claimant until after the legal
process ran its course and the claimant could no longer work as a security
guard in no way undermines the employer s position that the claimant was
discharged for misconduct, and the claimant is disqualified from benefits on
that basis.
DECISION:
The decision of the Administrative Law Judge is modified as follows and, as so
modified, is affirmed. The initial determination, disqualifying the claimant
from receiving benefits, effective May 26, 2011, on the basis that the claimant
voluntarily separated from employment without good cause, is overruled. The
initial determination, disqualifying the claimant from receiving benefits
effective May 26, 2011, on the basis that the claimant lost employment through
misconduct in connection with that employment and holding that the wages paid
to the claimant by prior to May 26, 2011, cannot be used toward the
establishment of a claim for benefits, is sustained. The claimant is denied
benefits with respect to the issues decided herein.
COMMENTS
In
the above matter the claimant was a security guard who while on duty assaulted
someone in May of 2010. The claimant was arrested and charged with felony
assault. In May of 2011 the claimant pled guilty to assault in the second
degree, a felony. Once the claimant s guilt was established he was considered
to have committed a criminal act on the job which is misconduct in connection
with employment.