Browse cases by category
- Attorneys & Legal Services
- Bankruptcy
- Civil Procedure & Administrative Law
- Civil Rights
- Consumer
- Criminal
- Disability
- Economic Development
- Education
- Elections
- Employment
- Environmental Justice
- Evidence
- Family Law
- Food Programs
- Government and Governmental Services
- Guardianship & Conservatorship
- Health
- Housing
- Immigration
- Juveniles
- License (Auto & Others)
- Mental Health
- Migrants
- Native Americans
- Other
- Prisons
- Public Utilities & Energy
- Rural Issues
- Senior Citizens
- Social Security & SSI
- Taxation
- Torts
- Unemployment Compensation & Unemployment Insurance
- Veterans & Military
- Welfare
- Wills & Estates
- Workforce Development
Donaldson, In re
(N.H. Sup. Ct. filed May 18, 1995) ; Clearinghouse Number: 50727
Description
Claimant Discharged over the Phone After Expressing Discontent with Her Supervisor Appeals Denial of Benefits
Abstract
Appellant, a 70-year-old woman who had worked for over 24 years as
a nurse’s aide, has requested the New Hampshire Supreme Court
to reverse the Department of Employment Security’s decision
denying her unemployment compensation. While appellant was home on
vacation, her employer called her to discuss her return to work. In
that conversation, appellant told her employer that she was upset
with the charge nurse on her floor, and her employer terminated
her. The employer’s ground for termination was
appellant’s alleged refusal to work with the charge nurse.
Appellant disputes this allegation. Finding that she had been
discharged for misconduct, the Department of Employment Security
denied appellant’s application for unemployment benefits. On
appeal, appellant argues that the department wrongly applied the
test for misconduct outlined in In re New Hampshire Sweepstakes
Commission, 130 N.H. 659, 664 (1988). She asserts that she did not
deliberately violate any company rule, as required under New
Hampshire Sweepstakes when a single instance of misconduct is
alleged. She maintains that the department ignored her undisputed
history of good job performance for over 24 years and argues that
her comments about the charge nurse, made in a phone call while at
home on vacation, were not sufficiently connected with her work to
be considered work-related misconduct. Appellant also argues that
the hearing officer failed to base his determination that
employer’s testimony was credible and appellant’s
testimony was not on substantial evidence or to justify the
credibility determination. Finally, appellant argues that the
department erred by failing to notify her adequately of her right
to counsel in the administrative proceeding. Counsel notes that
appellant was represented at the hearing by a claims representative
who worked for the state employment security agency.
