Insubordination Can Disqualify an Employee From Unemployment Compensation Benefits

folderUnemployment compensation is a form of social insurance.  Workers who lose their jobs receive benefits – which are less than they earned when employed – to provide a level of income while transitioning to the next job.  Therefore the “default setting” for the unemployment compensation system is that an individual who has been separated from employment (having sufficient length of service to be eligible) will receive benefits unless disqualified under one of the statutory grounds for disqualification.  The burden of proof is on the employer to sustain a disqualification.

One basis for separation that disqualifies a person from receipt of benefits is discharge for “wilful misconduct in the course of employment,” Conn. Gen. Stat. §31-236(a)(2)(B).  “Wilful misconduct” is defined by regulation as “deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer’s interest,” and “deliberate misconduct” is defined as (among other things) an intentional act or omission which is “not consistent with the standards of behavior which an employer, in the operation of his business, should reasonably be able to expect from an employee.”  Connecticut Dep’t of Labor Regulations  §31-236-26 and 26a.

Friction is not unknown in the workplace, but most employers would probably agree that reasonably polite and cooperative behavior  is an appropriate expectation for employees, and that  an employee whose defiance or insubordination seems to leave the employer no choice but termination should not then be eligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits.  This expectation was vindicated in a disqualification case recently affirmed by the Connecticut Appellate Court.

In the case of James Davis III v. Administrator of Unemployment Compensation, released on February 3, 2015, the Court reviewed Mr. Davis’s reaction to the news  that he (along with other employees) was to attend mandatory anti-harassment training, which had been scheduled in part because of a complaint that Mr. Davis had made racially inappropriate remarks to a co-worker.  Mr. Davis responded to the notice with an e-mail message denying that he had harassed anyone, and stating that he expressed himself but didn’t need therapy, that he satisfied customers, and “if that’s not good enough I suggest you give me a pink slip and I’ll walk.”   He was then terminated and applied for unemployment benefits.  He was ruled eligible at the initial intake, but an appeals referee, the Employment Security Board of Review, the Superior Court, and finally the Appellate Court all found that he was disqualified because he had been discharged for wilful misconduct.

In upholding the denial of benefits, the Appellate Court held that the mandatory training was a reasonable management directive, and that the response of Mr. Davis constituted insubordination.  Mr. Davis’s own belief that he had not harassed anyone did not justify his insubordinate reaction to his manager’s reasonable request.

It is likely that  some Connecticut employers have anecdotes of more egregious employee insubordination that did not result in disqualification from receipt of unemployment benefits, but the Davis case shows that there is balance in the unemployment compensation system for employers willing to undertake the effort of presenting their case to an appeals referee.

This blog/web site presents general information only. The information you obtain at this site is not, nor is it intended to be, legal advice, and you should not consider or rely on it as such. You should consult an attorney for individual advice regarding your own situation. This website is not an offer to represent you. You should not act, or refrain from acting, based upon any information at this website. Neither our presentation of such information nor your receipt of it creates nor will create an attorney-client relationship with any reader of this blog. Any links from another site to the blog are beyond the control of Pullman & Comley, LLC and do not convey their approval, support or any relationship to any site or organization. Any description of a result obtained for a client in the past is not intended to be, and is not, a guarantee or promise the firm can or will achieve a similar outcome.

PDF
Subscribe to Updates

About Our Labor, Employment and Employee Benefits Law Blog

Alerts, commentary, and insights from the attorneys of Pullman & Comley’s Labor, Employment Law and Employee Benefits practice on such workplace topics as labor and employment law, counseling and training, litigation, immigration law and union issues, as well as employee benefits and ERISA matters.

Other Blogs by Pullman & Comley

Connecticut Health Law Blog

Education Law Notes

For What It May Be Worth

Recent Posts

Archives

Jump to Page