CompFox Logo
AboutWorkflowFeaturesPricingCase LawInsights

Updated Daily

Case Law Database

Access over workers' compensation decisions, including En Banc, Significant Panel Decisions, and writ-denied cases.

Case No. 522199
Regular Panel Decision
Jul 28, 2016

Matter of Pierre (Commr. of Labor)

The claimant, Jean G. Pierre, appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board which disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that Pierre, a security officer, was discharged after threatening and yelling profanities at a supervisor and lunging in a threatening manner, requiring restraint and police intervention. The Appellate Division affirmed the Board's decision, concluding that substantial evidence supported the finding of disqualifying misconduct. The court highlighted that threats against a coworker, profane language, and insubordination to a supervisor constitute misconduct, aligning with the employer's policy against threatening violence.

Unemployment InsuranceEmployee MisconductWorkplace ViolenceInsubordinationAdministrative AppealSecurity ServicesEmployment TerminationAppellate DivisionNew York State LawSubstantial Evidence
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Marquez

The case involves an appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. Claimant, an assembler at B & G Electronics, Inc., was discharged for using profanity towards her supervisor. Initially, she reported being laid off for unemployment benefits but later disclosed the true circumstances. The Commissioner of Labor and subsequently the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled her ineligible for benefits due to misconduct. The court reversed the Board's decision, concluding that her isolated use of profanity under stressful circumstances did not constitute misconduct disqualifying her from benefits, and that her pre-benefit disclosure meant no willful false statement was made. The matter was remitted for further proceedings.

misconductunemployment benefits eligibilityinsubordinationprofanityfalse statementemployer dischargeappellate reviewdue processstressful circumstancesisolated incident
References
8
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 05, 2009

In re the Claim of Messado

The claimant, a clerical worker, was discharged from a city agency for misconduct after confronting a coworker in a threatening manner and using profanity, despite previous warnings for similar behavior. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board denied his claim for unemployment insurance benefits. On appeal, the decision was affirmed, with the court finding substantial evidence to support the Board's finding of disqualifying misconduct. The court noted that threatening behavior toward a coworker constitutes misconduct and upheld the Board's resolution of credibility issues presented by conflicting testimonies.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTermination of EmploymentThreatening BehaviorProfanityCredibility IssueCoworker DisputeWorkplace ConductPrior WarningsAppellate Review
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Pierre

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which had disqualified him from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The Board found that the claimant, employed as a security officer, was discharged after he threatened, used profanity towards, and lunged at a supervisor following a verbal directive, necessitating restraint and police intervention. This conduct was deemed a violation of the employer's policy against workplace violence. Despite the claimant offering a different account of the incident, the Board credited the testimony of the employer's witnesses. Consequently, the Board's determination of disqualifying misconduct, supported by substantial evidence, was affirmed on appeal.

MisconductUnemployment InsuranceAppeal BoardSecurity OfficerThreatening BehaviorProfanityInsubordinationSupervisorSubstantial EvidencePolicy Violation
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 11, 2019

Preston v. Fed. Express Corp.

Preston, a white male Senior Safety Specialist, sued FedEx for race and sex discrimination and retaliation after his employment was terminated. He alleged discriminatory actions by his African-American female manager, Irene Parker, who issued him two warning letters for profanity and stopping a FedEx truck on public roads. FedEx cited policy violations and a recurrent pattern of misconduct for his termination. The court denied FedEx's motion for summary judgment, finding genuine disputes regarding whether Preston's actions constituted an "egregious violation," if the reasons for termination were pretextual, and if similarly situated minority employees received more favorable treatment.

DiscriminationRetaliationSummary JudgmentRace DiscriminationSex DiscriminationEmployment TerminationWorkplace ConductPolicy ViolationPretextDisparate Treatment
References
37
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 21, 1997

In re the Claim of Sobhani

This case involves an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which disqualified the claimant from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The claimant, a hair stylist, was discharged for using profane and insubordinate language towards her employer in the presence of co-workers and clients. Evidence showed the claimant had previously directed similar language at her employer and had been warned about potential termination for such conduct. The Board ruled that these actions constituted disqualifying misconduct, a decision which the appellate court affirmed. The court found substantial evidence in the record to support the Board’s conclusion that insubordinate and disrespectful language towards an employer can be grounds for disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceBenefitsDisqualificationMisconductTerminationInsubordinationProfane LanguageAppealAffirmationWorkplace Conduct
References
1
Case No. 2015-06-0059
Regular Panel Decision
Dec 11, 2015

Mace, Mario v. Express Services, Inc.

The employee, Mario Mace, appealed the denial of temporary partial disability benefits. He had been terminated for using profane language in the workplace, which the employer, Express Services, Inc., deemed insubordination and unprofessional conduct. Mace contended his termination was a pretext to his work-related shoulder injury, as he was placed on light-duty work that he found challenging. The trial court determined the employer provided appropriate light-duty and that the termination was not pretextual. The Appeals Board affirmed this decision, finding that Mace's actions constituted misconduct under established workplace rules and were the true motivation for his dismissal, thus upholding the denial of benefits. The case was subsequently remanded for any further necessary proceedings.

TerminationProfanityWorkplace MisconductTemporary Partial Disability BenefitsWork InjuryRotator Cuff InjuryLight Duty WorkEmployee Handbook ViolationInsubordinationUnprofessional Conduct
References
4
Case No. 2024-50-4684
Regular Panel Decision
Jan 30, 2025

Winfrey, Jackey v. McMinnville Tool and Die, Inc.

The employee, Jackey Winfrey, appealed the dismissal of his workers' compensation claim against McMinnville Tool and Die, Inc. Winfrey alleged multiple work-related injuries but exhibited continuous dissatisfaction with authorized physicians, missed appointments, and engaged in inappropriate, profane, and threatening communication with legal and court personnel. He also failed to attend a court-ordered deposition. The trial court initially granted a voluntary dismissal and subsequently dismissed the case with prejudice due to Winfrey's repeated violations of court orders and failure to cooperate in discovery. The Workers' Compensation Appeals Board affirmed the trial court's decision, finding no abuse of discretion given the employee's abusive conduct and persistent non-compliance.

Employee misconductDiscovery violationsMedical treatment refusalHarassmentAbusive languageDismissal with prejudiceWorkers' compensation appealPro se litigantSanctionsAppeals board decision
References
6
Case No. M2003-00287-COA-R3-CV
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 12, 2004

Ralph Sasser v. Quebecor Printing,(USA) Corp., D/B/A Quebecor Printing Clarkesville

Ralph Sasser, an employee of Quebecor Printing, suffered an on-the-job injury resulting in a leg amputation. Quebecor accommodated him with a clerical position, but Sasser alleged harassment in his new workspace, a community desk in the maintenance area. Incidents included grease, food residue, dirty footprints, and profane graffiti on his monitor. Sasser filed a lawsuit under the Tennessee Human Rights Act and Tennessee Handicap Act, claiming a hostile work environment based on disability, retaliation, and discrimination. The trial court granted summary judgment for Quebecor, finding insufficient evidence of harassment directed at Sasser or linked to his disability. The Court of Appeals affirmed the summary judgment, agreeing that the incidents did not amount to harassment and lacked a connection to Sasser's disability.

hostile work environmentdisability discriminationAmericans with Disabilities ActTennessee Handicap Actsummary judgmentworkplace harassmentretaliationdiscriminationintentional infliction of emotional distressnegligent maintenance
References
14
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
May 01, 2014

Matter of Marcus JJ.

This case concerns an appeal from an order of the Family Court of Chemung County, which granted a petition to adjudicate the respondent's children neglected. The respondent, the biological mother of two sons, argued that she was not a 'person legally responsible' for the children at the time of the alleged neglect and challenged the merits of the neglect finding. The Family Court's decision was supported by evidence of the mother's inappropriate behavior, including yelling and profanities during meetings, verbal and physical threats against her older son, a positive cocaine test, and her subsequent refusal to undergo drug tests. Additionally, the children were exposed to domestic violence perpetrated against the mother by her paramour, which caused them distress. The appellate court affirmed the Family Court's order, finding no merit in the respondent's contentions and substantial support in the record for the finding of neglect.

Child NeglectFamily Law AppealParental MisconductDomestic Violence ExposureDrug AbuseChild Protective ServicesParental RightsSupervised VisitsCredibility AssessmentAppellate Review
References
16
Showing 1-10 of 14 results

Ready to streamline your practice?

Apply these legal strategies instantly. CompFox helps you find decisions, analyze reports, and draft pleadings in minutes.

CompFox Logo

The AI standard for workers' compensation professionals. Faster research, deeper analysis, better outcomes.

Product

  • Platform
  • Workflow
  • Features
  • Pricing

Solutions

  • Defense Firms
  • Applicants' Attorneys
  • Insurance carriers
  • Medical Providers

Company

  • About
  • Insights
  • Case Law

Legal

  • Privacy
  • Terms
  • Trust
  • Cookies
  • Subscription

© 2026 CompFox Inc. All rights reserved.

Systems Operational