Labor & Employment Law

Suspended employees claim for unemployment insurance benefits approved

Suspended employees claim for unemployment insurance benefits approved
Matter of Peter A. Kuryla v Commissioner of Labor, 45 A.D.3d 1129, Appellate Division, Third Department

Peter A. Kuryla, an assistant professor at Finger Lakes Community College, was disciplined for using ?profane and vulgar language in a loud and disruptive manner, audible to faculty as well as students and staff passing by [his] office.? The one semester suspension without pay was imposed as a penalty for this conduct was suspended on condition that, among other things, no similar incidents occur.

In December of the following year, another disciplinary action was brought against Kuryla as a result of comments made by him to a fellow employee about his supervisor and a brief confrontation with another employee.

Based on this conduct, Kuryla was suspended without pay for the spring 2006 semester. Kuryla then applied for unemployment insurance benefits.

Although Kuryla?s application for unemployment insurance benefits was initially denied based on a finding that he was unemployed due to his misconduct, the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board determined that Kuryla?s behavior did not, in fact, constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law.

The Appellate Division dismissed the College?s appeal, commenting that

?[t]he determination of whether conduct that precipitated a person?s discharge constitutes disqualifying misconduct presents an issue of fact for resolution by the Board,? and such resolution will not be disturbed if supported by substantial evidence.?

In this instance, said the court, Kuryla?s testimony provided the required ?quantum of evidence? supporting the Board?s determination that his conduct was indicative of poor judgment but not misconduct, especially in light of the College?s failure to produce any witnesses to the events giving rise to its disciplinary action against Kuryla.

According to the Appellate Division, the comment made by Kuryla about his supervisor, while crass, was not profane or vulgar and Kuryla?s testimony concerning his confrontation with a fellow employee, which the Board was free to credit, could properly be deemed by the Board to depict an exchange that falls short of disqualifying misconduct.

Recognizing that the record also contains evidence that could support a contrary result, the Appellate Division held that ?inasmuch as the Board?s determination is supported by substantial evidence, we will not disturb its resolution of the conflicting evidence.?

Full post as published by New York Public Personnel Law on May 14, 2008 (boomark / email).