 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
FORBES-LILLEY v. UNEMPLOYMENT INS. COM'N6/16/1994
loyment benefits for the week in which she was discharged for misconduct connected with her work, and that disqualification continues until the claimant has earned 4 times her weekly benefit amount in
Claimant's admitted violation of a company rule does not necessarily rise to the level of statutory misconduct. Moore v. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs, 388 A.2d 516, 519 (Me. 1978). Rather, such a determination requires a two-prong analysis: (1) the employer must have a reasonable standard for discharge and (2) the employee must have acted unreasonably in failing to meet that standard. Wellby, 603 A.2d at 478. The employee's behavior is measured as the objective manifestation of intent. Sheink v. Maine Dept. of Manpower Affairs, 423 A.2d 519, 522 (Me. 1980). A finding of unreasonable behavior is not disturbed on appeal "if the Commission [could have] justifiably determine that the employee's conduct was of a type, degree, or frequency that was so violative of the employer's interests that it may reasonably be deemed tantamount to an intentional disregard of those interests." Id.
The Commission determined and the claimant concedes that the employer's written policy is reasonable. With reference to the second prong of the test, the Commission found that the claimant acted unreasonably in causing the accident. It found the claimant "particularly negligent" for her failure to observe a vehicle readily visible to a prudent driver. In McInnis v. Maine Unemployment Ins. Comm'n, 513 A.2d 857, 859 (Me. 1986), we held that "section 1043 specifically includes within the definition of misconduct careless or negligent acts of such degree that they are equivalent to intentional or deliberate violations of an employer's standards." In McInnis, the employee, while working as a bus-driver for the employer, caused three accidents. Id. at 858. The third and most serious accident occurred after the employee picked up some disabled passengers and left the wheelchair lift protruding from the bus. The employee failed to notice the lift in his mirror and failed to respond to a red warning light on the dashboard. As the employee resumed his driving, the lift struck and damaged the trunk and rear window of a car. Id. Based on those findings by the Commission, we upheld the determination that the employee's negligence rose to the level of misconduct, finding that the circumstances of the third accident alone clearly demonstrated the degree of negligence or carelessness required to come within the statutory definition of misconduct. Id.
Although recurrent acts of negligence typically form the basis for denying benefits, the statute specifically contemplates that a single act of negligence may also constitute misconduct. The record demonstrates that claimant knew she was passing two vehicles, yet she failed to locate both vehicles in her mirror before turning into the right lane. In fact, she returned to the right lane so quickly that the front of her tractor rammed the rear corner of one vehicle. She was fined for making an unsafe lane change, and the accident resulted in
The entry is:
Judgment vacated. Remanded for entry of judgment affirming the decision of the Commission.
All concurring.
I respectfully dissent.
Today the Court concludes that a factfinder may characterize a single unfortunate moment of inattentiveness as the functional equivalent of an intentional tort. If the Legislature had intended for misconduct to include a single act of simple negligence, it could have so provided.
In addition, I believe that the Court's decision ignores the "remedial nature" of the Employment Security Law, which "dictates a liberal construction
Page 1 2 3 Maine Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|