Repeated violations in the face of warnings have been held to amount to misconduct. Jackson v. Administrator, Department of Employment Security of State, 511 So.2d 1309, 1312 (La. App. 2nd Cir. 1987). Appellate review of an unemployment compensation proceeding is provided for under LSA-R.S. 23:1634(B), with the scope of review limited to determining whether the facts are supported by sufficient and competent evidence and, in the absence of fraud, whether the facts, as a matter of law, justify the action taken.
La. R.S. 23:1601(2)(a). Repeated violations in the face of warnings amount to misconduct. Jackson v. Administrator, Dept. of Employment Sec. of State, 511 So.2d 1309, 1312 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1987). The ALJ, whose findings of fact and conclusions of law were adopted by the Board of Review, found in pertinent part:
Operators, Inc. concerns a discharge that took place almost four years prior to the effective date of Act 750 of 1990 and is based entirely on pre-amendment cases. The sole authority on which Toney is based is one pre-amendment case, Jackson v. Administrator, 511 So.2d 1309 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1987).Operators, Inc., is the case perhaps most often cited for the proposition that the conduct must be "willful or wanton."
For a claimant to be disqualified under this standard, the "misconduct" must have resulted from wilful or wanton disregard of the employer's interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employee, or negligence in such a degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent or evil design. Jackson v. Administrator, 511 So.2d 1309 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987). Whether an employee's particular conduct intentionally disregards the employer's interest depends on all the circumstances.
. . . the "misconduct" must have resulted from willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interest, from deliberate violation of the employer's rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees. Charbonnet v. Gerace, 457 So.2d 676, 678 (La. 1984); Jackson v. Administrator of the Department of Employment Security, 511 So.2d 1309, 1311 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987); and Weber v. Whitfield, 511 So.2d 831 (La.App. 5th Cir. 1987). "The burden of proving misconduct of such grievous character to disqualify the claimant from receiving benefits under the act is upon the employer."
For a claimant to be disqualified from benefits because of "misconduct connected with his employment" under LSA-R.S. 23:1601(2), the "misconduct" must have resulted from willful or wanton disregard of the employer's interest, from a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, or from a direct disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect from his employees. Charbonnet v. Gerace, supra; Jackson v. Administrator, 511 So.2d 1309 (La.App. 2d Cir. 1987); Pilgrim Manor Nursing Home, Inc. v. Gerace, 337 So.2d 660 (La.App. 3d Cir. 1976). The type of behavior which is considered "willful misconduct" is intentional wrong behavior.