From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. Mcneil

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 17, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)

Opinion

2011-11-17

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. McNEIL, Appellant.Commissioner of Labor, Respondent.

Michael J. McNeil, Rockville Center, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.


Michael J. McNeil, Rockville Center, appellant pro se.Eric T. Schneiderman, Attorney General, New York City (Mary Hughes of counsel), for respondent.

Appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, filed July 6, 2010, which ruled that claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.

Claimant worked as a garden associate for the employer for approximately 2 1/2 years when he was involved in an accident with a forklift and, pursuant to company policy, was required to submit to a drug test. When the employer retained an on-site collection agency the following day, petitioner refused to provide a urine sample, even after being told that refusing would be grounds for discharge. Claimant's employment was subsequently terminated and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance

benefits because he lost his employment through misconduct. Claimant now appeals.

We affirm. An employee's failure to abide by an employer's established policy can constitute disqualifying misconduct, particularly when it has a detrimental effect on the employer's interests ( see Matter of Sealey [Commissioner of Labor], 81 A.D.3d 1022, 1023, 915 N.Y.S.2d 773 [2011]; Matter of Brauneisen [GEICO Ins. Co.-Commissioner of Labor], 72 A.D.3d 1381, 1382, 901 N.Y.S.2d 720 [2010] ). Here, substantial evidence supports the Board's determination inasmuch as claimant testified that he was aware of the employer's policy, had been warned that noncompliance would be grounds for termination and refused to submit to a drug test nonetheless ( see Matter of Jenkins [City of N.Y.-Commissioner of Labor], 27 A.D.3d 863, 864, 810 N.Y.S.2d 561 [2006]; Matter of Ramsey [Fairview Recovery Servs., Inc.-Commissioner of Labor], 17 A.D.3d 949, 949–950, 793 N.Y.S.2d 632 [2005] ).

ORDERED that the decision is affirmed, without costs.


Summaries of

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. Mcneil

Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.
Nov 17, 2011
89 A.D.3d 1314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
Case details for

In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. Mcneil

Case Details

Full title:In the Matter of the Claim of Michael J. McNEIL, Appellant.Commissioner of…

Court:Supreme Court, Appellate Division, Third Department, New York.

Date published: Nov 17, 2011

Citations

89 A.D.3d 1314 (N.Y. App. Div. 2011)
932 N.Y.S.2d 602
2011 N.Y. Slip Op. 8270

Citing Cases

In re Katynski

We affirm. An employee's failure to comply with an employer's reasonable policy that, in turn, has a…