The Commonwealth Court has ruled that a man’s history of tardiness and missing work were enough to show willful misconduct and deny the man unemployment benefits despite the fact that his final absence the one that got him fired was found to have been justified.
Ruling 5-2, the en banc panel decided the claimant’s 19 unexcused absences from his vehicle detailer job in a seven-month period fell below the standard his employer could expect and were adverse to the employer’s interest of getting work done in a timely fashion. Therefore, the employer had met its burden of showing willful misconduct.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
