Phills v. Doyal

3 Citing cases

  1. Ray v. Whitfield

    521 So. 2d 726 (La. Ct. App. 1988)

    The claimant seeking to recover benefits is not required to disprove that he has been discharged for misconduct connected with his employment; rather, the employer has the burden of proving misconduct on the part of the employee by a preponderance of the evidence. Credit v. Whitfield, supra; Ealy v. Sumrall, 401 So.2d 520 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1981); Phills v. Doyal, 291 So.2d 444 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1974); O'Neal v. Blanche, 482 So.2d 700 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1985). The factual findings of the Board of Review which are supported by sufficient competent evidence must be accepted by a reviewing court, limiting the scope of review to questions of law. La.R.S. 23:1634; Gardere v. Brown, 170 So.2d 758 (La.App. 1st Cir. 1964); Hall v. Doyal, 191 So.2d 349 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1966); Lee v. Brown, 148 So.2d 321 (La.App. 3rd Cir. 1962).

  2. Yoldash v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division

    438 N.E.2d 310 (Ind. Ct. App. 1982)   Cited 14 times
    In Yoldash, we found that an employee was in violation of standards of behavior reasonably expected of him by his employer, and thus, discharged for just cause, by directing abusive and offensive language, such as “drunk,” “suck-ass,” “communist,” and “fascist,” toward superiors.

    The court held the incident fell within the category of a mere mistake or error in judgment, or "minor peccadillo" which was not disqualifying. Other cases finding no misconduct sufficient to be disqualifying are Phills v. Doyal, (1974) La. App., 291 So.2d 444 (claimant told plant superintendent "in an unlady like manner" what he could do with a buzzer which signified end of lunch break; Raven v. Levine, (1972) 40 A.D.2d 128, 338 N YSo.2d 183 (isolated instance of petty irritability on part of both employee and supervisor not disqualifying); Hahn Machinery Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (1978) 39 Pa. Cmwlth. 365, 395 A.2d 651 (claimant had "loud and boisterous" words with his employer after being reprimanded for poor work); Horace W. Longacre, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, (1973) 12 Pa. Cmwlth. 176, 316 A.2d 110 (when foreman grabbed her as she was leaving for a legitimate work break and told her to do extra work, claimant told foreman to "go to hell"). Yoldash would describe his alleged offensive conduct as coming within the single isolated instance of insolence category, or as justified because he felt he was unfairly treated, and thus not disqualifying. It has been said that although there is so

  3. Caldwell v. Gerace

    378 So. 2d 1045 (La. Ct. App. 1979)   Cited 12 times

    The burden is on the employer to establish the disqualifying misconduct by a preponderance of competent evidence. Phills v. Doyal, 291 So.2d 444 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1974); Heard v. Doyal, 259 So.2d 412 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1972). Here, the employer presented no evidence.