Jackson v. Administrator of Department of Employment Security of the State

6 Citing cases

  1. Lewis v. La. State Judicial Review Bd.

    264 So. 3d 1208 (La. Ct. App. 2018)   Cited 4 times
    Maintaining appeal where pro se appellant's motion for appeal referenced the district court's reasons for judgment rather than the judgment itself

    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.

  2. Jimenez v. La. Dep't of Labor

    NUMBER 2016 CA 0835 (La. Ct. App. Feb. 17, 2017)

    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:

  3. Harris v. Houston

    722 So. 2d 1042 (La. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 7 times

    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."

  4. Toney v. Francis

    618 So. 2d 597 (La. Ct. App. 1993)   Cited 7 times

    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.

  5. Cabezas v. Administrator, Division of Employment Security

    557 So. 2d 985 (La. Ct. App. 1990)   Cited 7 times

    . . . 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."

  6. Gunn v. Gerace

    516 So. 2d 1180 (La. Ct. App. 1987)   Cited 12 times
    In Gunn v. Gerace, 516 So.2d 1180 (La.App. 2 Cir. 1987), the claimant had sworn and pointed at his supervisor during a heated discussion linked to the docking of his paycheck.

    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.