The New York State Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that Claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits because his employment was terminated due to misconduct.
Claimant had been served with administrative disciplinary proceeding pursuant to Civil Service Law §75 after the Employer received "public complaints about a potential derogatory post on Claimant's social media account", which account identified Claimant's place of employment. Such disciplinary charges alleged that Claimant had violated the Employer's code of conduct. These charges were then amended to include allegations that Claimant violated the Employer's established policies by failing to cooperate in the agency's investigations which followed.
Ultimately these charges were sustained by an administrative hearing officer and the hearing officer recommended that Claimant be terminated from his position. The hearing officer's findings and recommendation were adopted by the appointing authority and Claimant was terminated from his position.
Claimant then applied for unemployment insurance benefits. However, in the Unemployment Insurance Board hearings which followed the parties limited the issue to whether Claimant's social media post amounted to misconduct. The Unemployment Insurance Board's Administrative Law Judge [ALJ] gave "collateral estoppel effect to the findings of fact made at the disciplinary proceeding regarding the social media post" but then made independent additional factual findings.
The ALJ found that Claimant's conduct was an isolated incident of poor judgment that did not amount to disqualifying misconduct and ruled that Claimant was entitled to unemployment insurance benefits.
The Employer submitted an administrative appeal challenging the ALF's ruling and the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board remanded the matter for further consideration of the additional issue of whether Claimant's conduct in failing to cooperate with the investigations into the disciplinary charges filed by the Employer constituted disqualifying misconduct.
The ALJ, adhering to the previous ruling related to the social media posting, held that Claimant's "failure to cooperate in the disciplinary investigations, which was in violation of a known policy of the [Employer]," constituted disqualifying misconduct. The Board affirmed the ALJ's findings and Claimant appealed.
The Appellate Division held that substantial evidence supported the Board's decision that Claimant's failure to cooperate with the Employer's investigations in contravention of a known policy of the Employer amounted to disqualifying misconduct, citing Matter of Telemaque [Commissioner of Labor], 148 AD3d 1441, and other decisions. In so doing the Court rejected Claimant's argument that the Board "erred in remitting the matter for further development and consideration of whether [Claimant's] failure to cooperate in the investigations amounted to misconduct", noting that this issue was litigated in the course of the §75 disciplinary proceeding and was a basis for Claimant's discharge from employment.
Thus, explained the Court, the Board "was not precluded from remanding the matter for further consideration and development of the record in order to independently determine whether [Claimant] was properly denied unemployment insurance benefits for failing to cooperate."
The Appellate Division's decision also noted that Claimant had "commenced a federal action challenging his discharge, which was resolved by a settlement under which the [Employer] agreed to, among other things, internally change [Claimant's] termination for misconduct to an irrevocable voluntary resignation", pointing out that the Appellate Division and the parties agreed that such settlement has no impact on the instant appeal.
Click HERE to access the Appellate Division's decision posted on the Internet.