In re the Claim of Lemon

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York

In re the Claim of Lemon

232 A.D.2d 801, 648 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281

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

DecidedOctober 17, 1996

StatusPublished

This text of 232 A.D.2d 801 (In re the Claim of Lemon) 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 Lemon, 232 A.D.2d 801, 648 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281 (N.Y. Ct. App. 1996).

Pincite

Opinion

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed January 10, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a district manager overseeing a number of the employer’s retail stores. He was terminated from his position for refusing to provide his employer with Saturday work schedules during the busy holiday season. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals, arguing that his refusal to provide the requested schedules does not rise to the level of misconduct which disqualifies him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree.

It is undisputed that claimant was advised of the employer’s requirement that he perform specified Saturday work between September 23,1995 and December 23,1995 and that he prepare a schedule of his visits to various stores. Nonetheless, claimant refused to provide the schedules despite being told that his continued refusal would result in his termination, offering as justification that he had personal business to conduct on Saturdays and that weekend work was not part of the original terms of his employment as district manager.

It is well settled that a finding of misconduct will be sustained if substantial evidence demonstrates that a claimant’s actions are in violation of an employer’s reasonable work conditions (see, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). [802]*802Notwithstanding the original terms of claimant’s hiring, the employer had a right to request claimant to work a reasonable amount of overtime (see, Matter of Beehan [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 875; Matter of Bisson [Hartnett], 170 AD2d 738) and to provide the Saturday schedules requested during the busy holiday season. Since claimant flatly refused to provide the schedules without a good reason, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, 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 January 10, 1996, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a district manager overseeing a number of the employer’s retail stores. He was terminated from his position for refusing to provide his employer with Saturday work schedules during the busy holiday season. The Board disqualified claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits on the basis that he was terminated for misconduct. Claimant appeals, arguing that his refusal to provide the requested schedules does not rise to the level of misconduct which disqualifies him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. Based upon our review of the record, we disagree.

It is undisputed that claimant was advised of the employer’s requirement that he perform specified Saturday work between September 23,1995 and December 23,1995 and that he prepare a schedule of his visits to various stores. Nonetheless, claimant refused to provide the schedules despite being told that his continued refusal would result in his termination, offering as justification that he had personal business to conduct on Saturdays and that weekend work was not part of the original terms of his employment as district manager.

It is well settled that a finding of misconduct will be sustained if substantial evidence demonstrates that a claimant’s actions are in violation of an employer’s reasonable work conditions (see, Matter of Velazquez [Hudacs], 204 AD2d 928). [802]*802Notwithstanding the original terms of claimant’s hiring, the employer had a right to request claimant to work a reasonable amount of overtime (see, Matter of Beehan [Sweeney], 226 AD2d 875; Matter of Bisson [Hartnett], 170 AD2d 738) and to provide the Saturday schedules requested during the busy holiday season. Since claimant flatly refused to provide the schedules without a good reason, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board’s finding of misconduct.

Mikoll, J. P., Mercure, White, Yesawich Jr. and Peters, JJ., concur. Ordered that the decision is affirmed, without costs.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

232 A.D.2d 801, 648 N.Y.S.2d 188, 1996 N.Y. App. Div. LEXIS 10281, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/in-re-the-claim-of-lemon-nyappdiv-1996.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack