Q. When will a terminated worker be denied unemployment benefits under California law?
A. If an employer can prove that a former employee was fired for “misconduct,” the worker is not eligible for unemployment benefits. To establish misconduct for this purpose, the employer must show that the conduct leading to the discharge constituted a substantial disregard of the standard of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of employees.
The employer must prove that the employee owed a “reasonable duty” to perform the job; that the worker breached this duty; that the breach was willful (known by the employee, as documented by previous warnings); and, if allowed to continue, the employer would have been injured by the employee’s actions. Work rules, job descriptions, employee handbooks and documentation of the former employee’s specific deficiencies are vital to establishing misconduct.
Seek the advice of counsel before deciding to challenge a worker’s unemployment claim.
Like what you've read? ...Republish it and share great business tips!
Attention: Readers, Publishers, Editors, Bloggers, Media, Webmasters and more...
We believe great content should be read and passed around. After all, knowledge IS power. And good business can become great with the right information at their fingertips. If you'd like to share any of the insightful articles on BusinessManagementDaily.com, you may republish or syndicate it without charge.
The only thing we ask is that you keep the article exactly as it was written and formatted. You also need to include an attribution statement and link to the article.
" This information is proudly provided by Business Management Daily.com: http://www.businessmanagementdaily.com/2972/misconduct-makes-employees-ineligible-for-unemployment-benefits "
- How to evaluate and choose a geriatric care manager
- Save hours, employee worry with identity-Theft protection
- What could get in the way of a settlement that prevents all possible future claims?
- The tax alternative to 'other income'
- When filing lawsuits, employees not entitled to 'Two bites at the apple'