Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 377 Mass. 94, 95 (1979). South Cent. Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Employment Training, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 180, 184 (2002). The case is governed by G.L. c. 151A, § 25, which provides as follows: "[N]o benefits shall be paid to an individual under this chapter . . . ( e) . . . after the individual has left work . . . (2) by discharge shown to the satisfaction of the commissioner by substantial and credible evidence to be attributable to deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employing unit's interest, or to a knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, providing that such violation is not shown to be the result of the employee's incompetence, or (3) because of conviction of a felony or misdemeanor."
Marriott does not argue the theory that Weber committed a "knowing violation" of a company rule. "[T]he employee's state of mind at the time of the misconduct is an issue for both parts" of the required analysis, South Cent. Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Employment & Training, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 180, 185 (2002), quoting Still v. Commissioner of the Dep't of Employment & Training, 423 Mass. 805, 810 (1996), i.e., to prove that the conduct was "intentional" and that the employee "knew [the conduct] was contrary to the employer's interest." Id., quoting Still, at 810. b. Lack of substantial evidence.
G.L. c. 30A, § 14(7)( c ) and ( g ). The observation of this court in South Cent. Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Employment & Training, 55 Mass.App.Ct. 180, 186, 770 N.E.2d 17 (2002), remains accurate: “We do not know of any decision, and we have not been referred to any, that holds that an employer's actions had in some fashion condoned the employee's deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest.
Garfield v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 377 Mass. at 95. See Cantres v. Director of the Div. of Employment Security, 396 Mass. 226, 228 (1985); South Cent. Rehabilitative Resources, Inc. v. Commissioner of the Div. of Employment Training, 55 Mass. App. Ct. 180, 184 (2002). The phrase "deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employing unit's interest" has been interpreted to cover any "intentional conduct or inaction which the employee knew was contrary to the employer's interest."