Blake v. Hercules, Inc.

19 Citing cases

  1. Va. Employment Commission v. Sutphin

    8 Va. App. 325 (Va. Ct. App. 1989)   Cited 11 times

    Code Sec. 60.2-625(A); see Israel v. Virginia Employment Commission, 7 Va. App. 169, 172, 372 S.E.2d 207, 209 (1988). However, analyzing an employee's behavior with the disqualification provisions of the statute is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable by this Court on appeal. Israel, 7 Va. App. at 172, 372 S.E.2d at 209; Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987). (2) The purpose of the Unemployment Compensation Act is to "provide temporary financial assistance to workmen who [become] unemployed without fault on their part.

  2. Kennedy's Piggly Wiggly Stores v. Cooper

    14 Va. App. 701 (Va. Ct. App. 1992)   Cited 23 times
    Holding no misconduct where an employee told chief executive officer he was "full of shit" in a private meeting outside the presence of any customers or other employees

    "Whether an employee's behavior constitutes misconduct . . . is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable by this court on appeal." Id. (citing Blake v. Hercules. Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987)). We are bound by the commission's findings of fact, which are supported by the evidence.

  3. Dolan v. Svitak

    247 Neb. 410 (Neb. 1995)   Cited 13 times

    Some states hold that a positive drug test result, without proof of impaired work performance, does not suffice for disqualification of benefits. Stone Forest Industries, Inc. v. Employment Div., 127 Or. App. 568, 873 P.2d 474 (1994) (positive drug test result does not disqualify discharged employee from benefits without proof that employee was under the influence of drugs at work); Weller v. Arizona Dept. of Economic Sec., 176 Ariz. 220, 860 P.2d 487 (Ariz. App. 1993) (positive drug test result alone does not show work-related misconduct); Crain v. Employment Security, 65 Wn. App. 51, 827 P.2d 344 (1992) (employee disqualified from unemployment compensation due to failed drug test in conjunction with adverse job performance); Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987) (positive drug test result does not prove willful disregard of employer rules). Other states, however, hold that a positive drug test result not only evidences some influence of controlled substances while at work, but also proves an intentional violation of drug-free work policies.

  4. National Gypsum v. Kansas Employment Sec. Bd. of Review

    244 Kan. 678 (Kan. 1989)   Cited 30 times
    In National Gypsum Co. v. Kansas Employment Security Bd. of Review, 244 Kan. 678, 686-87, 772 P.2d 786 (1989), we held that off-duty misconduct (drug use) must be related to both the work of the employee and the employer's business to disqualify a claimant from benefits.

    The court then concluded that an off-the-job activity which has no impact on the employee's work is almost, by definition, not work-connected. Direct observation by supervisors and coworkers of employee conduct in the workplace is a better means of identifying impaired workers. A similar result was reached in Blake v. Hercules Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987), where the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's denial of unemployment benefits to an employee who had tested positive for drugs. The employer, a munitions factory, had enacted a substance abuse policy which prohibited use or possession of alcohol or drugs on company premises and further prohibited employees from being under the influence of alcohol or drugs while at work. After undergoing a drug screen, the employee, Blake, tested positive for marijuana.

  5. Clevenger v. Employment Security Dep't

    105 Nev. 145 (Nev. 1989)   Cited 12 times
    In Clevenger, an employee who was involved in an industrial accident was ordered, per company policy, to submit to a drug screening.

    (Emphasis added). There are numerous cases where an employee's misconduct is sufficient ground for termination, but does not justify the denial of unemployment benefits because the misconduct was not shown to be connected with his or her work. Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 356 S.E.2d 453 (Va.Ct.App. 1987); Glide Lumber Products Co. v. Employment Division, 741 P.2d 907 (Or.Ct.App. 1987). (These cases are cited as illustrations and not necessarily to approve their holdings.)

  6. Francis v. Virginia Emp't Comm'n

    Record No. 0827-11-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jan. 9, 2012)

    Va. Empl. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 57 Va. App. 700, 704, 705 S.E.2d 530, 532-33 (2011) (quoting Va. Emp't Comm'n v. Trent, 55 Va. App. 560, 568, 687 S.E.2d 99, 103 (2010)). Nevertheless, since the Act is remedial in its purpose, id. at 708, 419 S.E.2d at 282 (citing Israel, 7 Va. App. at 172, 372 S.E.2d at 209), "[e]ven employees who are fired for what the employer considers good cause may be entitled to unemployment compensation," Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 273, 356 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1987). Thus, "'the statutory term "misconduct" should . . . be construed in a manner least favorable to working a forfeiture so as to minimize the penal character of the provision by excluding cases not clearly intended to be within the exception.'"

  7. Francis v. Virginia Employment Commission

    717 S.E.2d 438 (Va. Ct. App. 2011)   Cited 1 times

    Under the Act, “ ‘[t]he legislature intended unemployment benefits to be paid only to those who find themselves unemployed without fault on their part.’ ” Va. Empl. Comm'n v. Cmty. Alternatives, Inc., 57 Va.App. 700, 704, 705 S.E.2d 530, 532–33 (2011) (quoting Va. Emp't Comm'n v. Trent, 55 Va.App. 560, 568, 687 S.E.2d 99, 103 (2010)). Nevertheless, since the Act is remedial in its purpose, id. at 708, 419 S.E.2d at 282 (citing Israel, 7 Va.App. at 172, 372 S.E.2d at 209), “[e]ven employees who are fired for what the employer considers good cause may be entitled to unemployment compensation,” Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va.App. 270, 273, 356 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1987). Thus, “ ‘the statutory term “misconduct” should ... be construed in a manner least favorable to working a forfeiture so as to minimize the penal character of the provision by excluding cases not clearly intended to be within the exception.’ ”

  8. Hunter v. Virginia Empl. Comm.

    Record No. 0947-97-3 (Va. Ct. App. Dec. 23, 1997)

    The range of behavior that constitutes "misconduct" under Code § 60.2-618(2) is more narrow than the range of behavior that justifies an employer's decision to discharge an employee. "[E]mployees who are fired for what the employer considers good cause may [still] be entitled to unemployment compensation," Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 273, 356 S.E.2d 453, 455 (1987), and "behavior which is involuntary, unintentional or the product of simple negligence does not rise to the level necessary to justify a denial of unemployment benefits."

  9. Blum v. Virginia Employment

    Record No. 0363-96-3 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 23, 1996)

    Blum admitted that he regularly smoked marijuana and that he sold marijuana to support his habit. Cf. Virginia Employment Comm'n v. Sutphin, 8 Va. App. 325, 380 S.E.2d 667 (1989); Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987). However, Blum argues that the VEC erred in finding he had committed work-related misconduct because there was no evidence that those actions affected his work, caused adverse publicity for the city, or created adverse circumstances for the city or its employees.

  10. American Automobile v. George

    Record No. 2344-94-4 (Va. Ct. App. Jul. 5, 1995)

    "Whether an employee's behavior constitutes misconduct . . . is a mixed question of law and fact reviewable by this court on appeal." Israel, 7 Va. App. at 172, 372 S.E.2d at 209 (citing Blake v. Hercules, Inc., 4 Va. App. 270, 356 S.E.2d 453 (1987)). [A]n employee is guilty of "misconduct connected with his work" when he deliberately violates a company rule reasonably designed to protect the legitimate business interests of his employer, or when his acts or omissions are of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligations he owes his employer.