Adjunct Law Prof Blog

Editor: Mitchell H. Rubinstein
New York Law School

Sunday, December 16, 2012

Dissatisfaction with employment does not entitle former employee to unemployment

Matter of Prince v. Commissioner of Labor, ____A.D. 3d____(3d Dept. Nov. 29, 2012), is an interesting unemployment case. It addresses whether an individual is disqualified from unemployment if he leaves his job because he is dissatisfied. He or she does. As the court explained:

[G]eneral dissatisfaction with working conditions, including the employer's training procedures, does not constitute good cause for leaving employment" (Matter of Forman [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d 642, 643 [2004] [internal quotation marks and citation omitted]). Although claimant did not believe that the employer's training procedure was adequate, he failed to participate in all of the training offered. Claimant left his employment [*2]without taking reasonable steps to protect his job and provide the employer an opportunity to remedy the situation. Accordingly, we find that substantial evidence supports the Board's determination that claimant left his employment without good cause (see Matter of Matuszewski [Commissioner of Labor], 24 AD3d 1153, 1154 [2005]; Matter of Forman [Commissioner of Labor], 3 AD3d at 643; Matter of Greenspan [Commissioner of Labor], 284 AD2d 715, 715-716 [2001]). We have considered claimant's contention that he was denied the opportunity to present documentary evidence and find it to be unpersuasive.

Mitchell H. Rubinstein

Employment Law | Permalink


Post a comment