In re the Claim of Gordon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Gordon

278 A.D.2d 579, 718 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739

CourtAppellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York

DecidedDecember 7, 2000

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 278 A.D.2d 579 (In re the Claim of Gordon) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of the State of New York primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

In re the Claim of Gordon, 278 A.D.2d 579, 718 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2000).

Pincite

Opinion

App[580]*580eal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 24, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a warehouse supervisor after he refused to submit to a random drug test required by his employer. The record establishes that claimant received an employee handbook outlining the employer’s policy regarding random drug testing which noted that refusal to submit to the random drug test would be considered insubordination and result in termination. Inasmuch as claimant was aware of and signed an acknowledgment that he understood the terms and conditions of his employment, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s refusal to submit to the drug test constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Flaherty [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 647[Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809). Although claimant contends that he was not randomly selected for the drug test, a contention that the employer disputes, this created a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722, 723).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

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

App[580]*580eal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 24, 1999, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant was discharged from his employment as a warehouse supervisor after he refused to submit to a random drug test required by his employer. The record establishes that claimant received an employee handbook outlining the employer’s policy regarding random drug testing which noted that refusal to submit to the random drug test would be considered insubordination and result in termination. Inasmuch as claimant was aware of and signed an acknowledgment that he understood the terms and conditions of his employment, substantial evidence supports the decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board that claimant’s refusal to submit to the drug test constituted disqualifying misconduct (see, Matter of Flaherty [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 647[Matter of Grover [Waste-Stream, Inc. — Sweeney], 233 AD2d 809). Although claimant contends that he was not randomly selected for the drug test, a contention that the employer disputes, this created a credibility issue for resolution by the Board (see, Matter of Derian [Sweeney], 239 AD2d 722, 723).

Cardona, P. J., Mercure, Carpinello, Rose and Lahtinen, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

278 A.D.2d 579, 718 N.Y.S.2d 228, 2000 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 12739, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-gordon-nyappdiv-2000.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack