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. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Feb 27, 1998

In re the Claim of Kim

The claimant appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct involved using offensive language towards a supervisor and kicking the supervisor's office door after being questioned about missing a meeting. The Board credited a co-worker's eyewitness testimony over the claimant's account, a finding upheld by the court as within the Board's authority to resolve credibility issues. The court found substantial evidence to support the Board's decision, affirming that disrespectful conduct towards a supervisor, including abusive behavior or vulgar language, constitutes disqualifying misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductDisqualificationOffensive LanguageWorkplace ConductCredibility DeterminationSupervisory DisrespectAppellate ReviewAdministrative LawEmployment Termination
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Apr 04, 1997

In re the Claim of Vinci

The claimant was discharged from the US Postal Service for misconduct after it was discovered he and his supervisor discarded 4,106 pieces of processable mail, including first, second, and third-class mail, which resulted in a revenue loss of over $2,000. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that his employment termination was due to misconduct, disqualifying him from receiving benefits, a decision affirmed on appeal. The court found that the claimant knowingly violated established workplace procedures, rejecting his contention that his guilt should be mitigated because he acted under his supervisor's instruction, as he admitted knowing the actions were wrong. Furthermore, the court dismissed the argument that a co-worker received benefits for similar actions, distinguishing the situations by noting the co-worker was a mail clerk who believed her supervisor had discretionary power, whereas the claimant was a supervisor who knew discarding mail was improper.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductEmployment TerminationUS Postal ServiceAppellate DecisionWorkplace ProceduresSupervisor LiabilityEmployee ResponsibilityBenefit DisqualificationAppeal Board Decision
References
3
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 05, 1993

In re the Claim of Dodson

The claimant, a social worker, appealed a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The Board had ruled that she was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. This misconduct stemmed from her repeated failure to submit completed case notes for children under her care, despite her supervisor's instructions and reminders. Her supervisor ultimately had to complete the notes herself. The appellate court affirmed the Board's decision, finding sufficient evidence to support the finding of misconduct.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductSocial WorkerCase NotesEmployment TerminationAppealDisqualificationNegligenceAdministrative Law
References
0
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Nov 28, 2000

In re the Claim of Hawana

The claimant was discharged from their employment as a caseworker with the New York City Department of Citywide Administrative Services due to misconduct, specifically harassing and threatening their supervisor on numerous occasions. The Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board ruled that the claimant was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits. The court found substantial evidence supporting the Board's decision, noting that threatening a supervisor constitutes misconduct. Although the claimant denied making threats, the conflicting testimony from the supervisor and a co-worker created a credibility issue, which was resolved by the Board. The decision was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductHarassmentSupervisorTermination of EmploymentCaseworkerCredibility DisputeAdministrative AppealDisqualification of BenefitsAppellate Division
References
2
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. 2020 NY Slip Op 02083 [181 AD3d 949]
Regular Panel Decision
Mar 25, 2020

Klingsberg v. Council of Sch. Supervisors & Adm'rs-Local 1

The plaintiff, Joan Klingsberg, a tenured principal, was removed from her payroll by the New York City Department of Education (DOE) due to financial improprieties. She was represented by Charity Guerra, a staff attorney from her union, the Council of School Supervisors and Administrators-Local 1 (CSA), during disciplinary proceedings. After it was revealed Guerra sought a position with the DOE, Klingsberg declined a new attorney and represented herself. Although the arbitrator upheld termination, the DOE Chancellor overturned it, imposing a six-month suspension and returning Klingsberg to a non-administrative teaching position with back pay, followed by a $200,000 settlement. Klingsberg later sued Guerra for legal malpractice and violation of Judiciary Law § 487, alleging a conflict of interest. The Supreme Court granted Guerra's motion to dismiss, finding the action preempted by federal law and barred by a prior release agreement.

Legal MalpracticeJudiciary Law § 487Federal Labor Management Relations ActPreemptionCollective BargainingConflict of InterestRelease AgreementMotion to DismissAppellate DivisionQueens County
References
5
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Council of School Supervisors & Administrators, Local 1 v. New York City Department of Education

The Council of School Supervisors and Administrators (CSA) challenged the City's plan to reduce parking permits for school employees, arguing it violated their collective bargaining agreement. An arbitrator initially sided with CSA, directing the reinstatement of permits. However, the Supreme Court's decision to confirm this award was deemed erroneous by the appellate court. The appellate court found the arbitration award violated public policy, was irrational, and exceeded the arbitrator's authority because the power to issue on-street parking permits lies exclusively with the City's Department of Transportation (DOT), not the Department of Education (DOE). The court emphasized that the award essentially transferred DOT's regulatory authority to DOE and undermined the city's objectives to reduce congestion and pollution. Consequently, the arbitration award was vacated.

Labor disputeParking permitsCollective bargaining agreementArbitration awardPublic policy violationAdministrative lawMunicipal authorityTraffic regulationDepartment of TransportationDepartment of Education
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision
Aug 26, 1997

In re the Claim of Tracy

This case concerns an appeal from a decision by the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board. The claimant, a hotel reservations clerk, was terminated after leaving a vulgar and threatening message on her supervisor's voicemail, reportedly due to grievances about a co-worker's conduct. The Board ruled that her termination was due to misconduct, disqualifying her from unemployment insurance benefits. The appellate court affirmed this decision, referencing precedents that confirm vulgar language and disrespectful behavior toward supervisors constitute disqualifying misconduct. The court also noted that credibility issues from conflicting testimony are within the Board's purview.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductTermination of employmentVulgar languageDisrespectful conductSupervisorAppeal Board DecisionAppellate DivisionAffirmed decisionEmployee behavior
References
2
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

Romaine v. New York City Transit Authority

Petitioners, Local 106 Transport Workers Union and Richard LaManna, initiated a proceeding to prevent the New York City Transit Authority (NYCTA) from mandating track safety training for property protection supervisors. The Supreme Court, Kings County, denied the petition, citing the petitioners' failure to exhaust administrative remedies and asserted Public Employment Relations Board (PERB) jurisdiction over improper labor practice claims. The appellate court reversed this judgment, ruling that the existing collective bargaining agreement was solely between the Union and the nonparty Manhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating Authority (MABSTOA), not the NYCTA, making its grievance procedures inapplicable to the NYCTA. Furthermore, the court found that PERB lacked jurisdiction because the NYCTA was not the employer of the supervisors. Consequently, the petition was granted, prohibiting the NYCTA from enforcing mandatory track safety training.

Labor LawCollective Bargaining AgreementAdministrative RemediesPublic Employment Relations BoardProhibition ProceedingTrack Safety TrainingProperty Protection SupervisorsManhattan and Bronx Surface Transit Operating AuthorityNew York City Transit AuthorityExhaustion Doctrine
References
4
Case No. MISSING
Regular Panel Decision

In re the Claim of Abbondanzo

The claimant appealed a decision from the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, which ruled he was disqualified from receiving unemployment insurance benefits due to misconduct. The misconduct stemmed from a fight with a co-worker during business hours. The court found substantial evidence supported the Board's decision, noting that fighting with a co-worker constitutes disqualifying misconduct, especially given the claimant's prior admonishment for unprofessional conduct. The decision of the Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board was affirmed.

Unemployment InsuranceMisconductWorkplace FightingDisqualificationEmployment TerminationAppellate ReviewSubstantial EvidencePrior Admonishment
References
2
Showing 1-10 of 1,123 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