Page 7 - Unemployment_8-22-17_PRISMA_Neat

Involuntary

Discharge for Misconduct:
Misconduct is commonly defined as a willful violation of the standards of behavior, which an employer has
the right to expect of an employee . An act that amounts to a willful disregard of the employer’s interest or
recurring negligence, which demonstrates wrongful intent, is misconduct . Isolated instances of poor judgment,
good faith errors, unavoidable accidents, absences due to illness, or mere inefficiency resulting from lack of skills
or experience are NOT misconduct .
Guide to assist in determining misconduct:

• An isolated instance of poor judgment is not considered misconduct . “Poor judgment”, however, does not
excuse an act of gross misconduct (e .g ., assault, theft, etc .) or an act that results in serious consequences to
the employer .
• A single instance of carelessness or tardiness, unsatisfactory conduct beyond the claimant’s control or
inefficiency is not misconduct .
• Violation of the law is not misconduct unless it is connected with the work .
• Personality conflicts are not usually misconduct unless they involve acts of aggression towards other employees .
• Absences or tardiness from work without proper notification is usually misconduct unless there were extenuating
circumstances beyond the claimant’s control .
In order to establish misconduct an employer must show what efforts were made to control or prevent the behavior .
In other words, what was done prior to the discharge to change the behavior or notify the employee of the
problem? An employer can be found to have actually condoned the behavior if there was a lack of warnings .

Discharge for Performance:

Sometimes it may be necessary to terminate an employee due to performance issues . When this occurs, it is
important to determine whether it is due to an inability to do the job versus unwillingness to do the job . This will
make the difference between simple poor performance and work related misconduct .

Most states consider employees who are fired for performance reasons or simply because they are a “bad fit” for
the position, to be eligible for benefits .
Not being “able” to do a job generally cannot be considered misconduct – (which is defined as willful and
intentional disregard for the employer’s best interests) . It is either a bad hire by the management team, or the
expectations of the job may have changed substantially such that someone who was previously able to do their
job can no longer perform . This may be due to any number of things, like the introduction of new technology, new
processes, or even new – and higher production/work standards . In any case, since the non-performance is not
willful or intentional it therefore cannot be considered misconduct .

5
Revised February 2014 5 5