In re the Claim of Heath

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Heath

304 A.D.2d 944, 757 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3820

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

DecidedApril 10, 2003

StatusPublished

Cited by3 cases

This text of 304 A.D.2d 944 (In re the Claim of Heath) 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 Heath, 304 A.D.2d 944, 757 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3820 (N.Y. Ct. App. 2003).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 23, 2002, 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 factory worker for failing to wear safety glasses while cleaning equipment on the factory floor. It was the employer’s policy that safety glasses be worn in designated areas on the factory floor at all times to protect workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was a probationary employee who had been informed of the safety policy at orientation and had been reprimanded twice regarding his failure to wear safety glasses in designated areas. Given claimant’s disregard for a known policy of the employer, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Matter of Edie [New York City Tr. Auth. — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 952 [1998]). To the extent that claimant maintains that the company handbook requires that he first be given a written warning before termination, the record establishes that such provision does not apply to probationary employees.

Cardona, P.J., Mercure, Rose, Lahtinen and Kane, 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

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed August 23, 2002, 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 factory worker for failing to wear safety glasses while cleaning equipment on the factory floor. It was the employer’s policy that safety glasses be worn in designated areas on the factory floor at all times to protect workers. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because he lost his employment due to misconduct. The record establishes that claimant was a probationary employee who had been informed of the safety policy at orientation and had been reprimanded twice regarding his failure to wear safety glasses in designated areas. Given claimant’s disregard for a known policy of the employer, substantial evidence supports the Board’s decision (see Matter of Edie [New York City Tr. Auth. — Commissioner of Labor], 253 AD2d 952 [1998]). To the extent that claimant maintains that the company handbook requires that he first be given a written warning before termination, the record establishes that such provision does not apply to probationary employees.

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

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

304 A.D.2d 944, 757 N.Y.S.2d 154, 2003 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 3820, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-heath-nyappdiv-2003.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack