Menefee v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

Menefee v. Director of the Division of Employment Security

479 N.E.2d 674, 395 Mass. 1004, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1581

CourtMassachusetts Supreme Judicial Court

DecidedJuly 1, 1985

StatusPublished

Cited by1 cases

This text of 479 N.E.2d 674 (Menefee v. Director of the Division of Employment Security) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Menefee v. Director of the Division of Employment Security, 479 N.E.2d 674, 395 Mass. 1004, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1581 (Mass. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

The plaintiff claimant for unemployment compensation was unsuccessful before the agency and again on judicial review in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. She has appealed to this court. The agency denied benefits on the ground that the claimant’s discharge was “attributable solely to deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer’s interest.” See G. L. c. 151A, § 25 (e) (2) (1984 ed.). The review examiner made findings, supported by substantial evidence, that warranted the conclusion that the claimant’s actions constituted deliberate misconduct and were taken in wilful disregard of her employer’s interest. See Grise v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 393 Mass. 271, 273-275 (1984).

The agency’s conclusion that the reason the claimant took time off from her work “was not urgent or compelling but was strictly personal and social in nature” does not undermine its decision. That finding is not directly material to a determination under § 25 (e) (2), although it could be significant in deciding whether a claimant’s disregard of her employer’s interest was wilful.

Judgment affirmed.

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

The plaintiff claimant for unemployment compensation was unsuccessful before the agency and again on judicial review in the Municipal Court of the City of Boston. She has appealed to this court. The agency denied benefits on the ground that the claimant’s discharge was “attributable solely to deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer’s interest.” See G. L. c. 151A, § 25 (e) (2) (1984 ed.). The review examiner made findings, supported by substantial evidence, that warranted the conclusion that the claimant’s actions constituted deliberate misconduct and were taken in wilful disregard of her employer’s interest. See Grise v. Director of the Div. of Employment Sec., 393 Mass. 271, 273-275 (1984).

The agency’s conclusion that the reason the claimant took time off from her work “was not urgent or compelling but was strictly personal and social in nature” does not undermine its decision. That finding is not directly material to a determination under § 25 (e) (2), although it could be significant in deciding whether a claimant’s disregard of her employer’s interest was wilful.

Judgment affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

479 N.E.2d 674, 395 Mass. 1004, 1985 Mass. LEXIS 1581, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/menefee-v-director-of-the-division-of-employment-security-mass-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack