Bailey v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Connecticut Appellate Court

Bailey v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

490 A.2d 92, 3 Conn. App. 494, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 900

CourtConnecticut Appellate Court

DecidedApril 9, 1985

Docket3109

StatusPublished

Cited by10 cases

This text of 490 A.2d 92 (Bailey v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Connecticut Appellate Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bailey v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act, 490 A.2d 92, 3 Conn. App. 494, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 900 (Colo. Ct. App. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the employment security board of review denying the plaintiff unemployment benefits. The plaintiff was employed as a private duty nurse’s aide for a period of approximately three years, until she was discharged for wilful misconduct. The board [495]*495of review essentially adopted the findings of the appeals referee who found that the plaintiff had deliberately violated rules of conduct established by the employer, ranging from conflicts with fellow workers to disloyalty and insubordination.

The plaintiff principally claims that the board of review acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally, and, therefore, the decision denying her eligibility for benefits should be overturned. Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-236 (2) (B), an individual is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if he is discharged for repeated wilful misconduct in the course of his employment. In this context, “wilful misconduct” refers to conduct evincing a wilful disregard of an employer’s interest such as deliberate violations of the employer’s procedures or a disregard of expected standards of behavior. Hannon v. Administrator, 29 Conn. Sup. 14, 17, 269 A.2d 80 (1970); see also DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 678, 458 A.2d 362 (1983). Wilful misconduct includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule. A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Kordorsky, 134 Conn. 209, 211-12, 56 A.2d 169 (1947); Bigelow Co. v. Waselik, 133 Conn. 304, 308, 50 A.2d 769 (1946).

In appeals of this nature, the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo and is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions made by the appeals referee. Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4-5, 434 A.2d 293 (1980); Lazarcheck v. Administrator, 1 Conn. App. 591, 594, 474 A.2d 465 (1984).

Perusal of the referee’s findings reveals that the plaintiff’s conduct extended beyond mere inefficiency, inability or misjudgment.

[496]*496The referee’s conclusion that the plaintiff had engaged in repeated wilful misconduct was supported by the subsidiary facts found and was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

There is no error.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the employment security board of review denying the plaintiff unemployment benefits. The plaintiff was employed as a private duty nurse’s aide for a period of approximately three years, until she was discharged for wilful misconduct. The board [495]*495of review essentially adopted the findings of the appeals referee who found that the plaintiff had deliberately violated rules of conduct established by the employer, ranging from conflicts with fellow workers to disloyalty and insubordination.

The plaintiff principally claims that the board of review acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally, and, therefore, the decision denying her eligibility for benefits should be overturned. Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-236 (2) (B), an individual is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if he is discharged for repeated wilful misconduct in the course of his employment. In this context, “wilful misconduct” refers to conduct evincing a wilful disregard of an employer’s interest such as deliberate violations of the employer’s procedures or a disregard of expected standards of behavior. Hannon v. Administrator, 29 Conn. Sup. 14, 17, 269 A.2d 80 (1970); see also DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 678, 458 A.2d 362 (1983). Wilful misconduct includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule. A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Kordorsky, 134 Conn. 209, 211-12, 56 A.2d 169 (1947); Bigelow Co. v. Waselik, 133 Conn. 304, 308, 50 A.2d 769 (1946).

In appeals of this nature, the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo and is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions made by the appeals referee. Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4-5, 434 A.2d 293 (1980); Lazarcheck v. Administrator, 1 Conn. App. 591, 594, 474 A.2d 465 (1984).

Perusal of the referee’s findings reveals that the plaintiff’s conduct extended beyond mere inefficiency, inability or misjudgment.

[496]*496The referee’s conclusion that the plaintiff had engaged in repeated wilful misconduct was supported by the subsidiary facts found and was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

There is no error.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

490 A.2d 92, 3 Conn. App. 494, 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 900, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bailey-v-administrator-unemployment-compensation-act-connappct-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack