Welcome to DU! The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards. Join the community: Create a free account Support DU (and get rid of ads!): Become a Star Member All Forums Issue Forums Culture Forums Alliance Forums Region Forums Support Forums Help & Search

alp227

(31,962 posts)
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:10 PM Jul 2014

State court rules that fired Paratransit driver cannot be denied unemployment benefits

Source: Sacramento Bee

In a victory with broad implications for the state’s army of unemployed, the California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that unemployment benefits for a Sacramento Paratransit driver cannot be denied because he was fired for refusing to sign a formal notification of discipline.

“Even assuming (Paratransit’s) order to sign the disciplinary notice was reasonable and lawful, and even assuming (Craig Medeiros’) refusal to do so may have justified his termination ... the ... issue here is whether the ... facts, which are undisputed, establish that he committed misconduct within the meaning of” a state statute, the court said. “We conclude the answer is no,” it declared.

The unanimous opinion was authored by Justice Marvin R. Baxter.

After a passenger filed a complaint against Medeiros in 2008 alleging he harassed her and Paratransit decided the claim was well founded, he defied repeated orders to sign a memorandum that he was being disciplined for the incident, including two days on suspension without pay.

Read more: http://www.sacbee.com/2014/07/03/6533061/state-court-rules-that-fired-paratransit.html

2 replies = new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight: NoneDon't highlight anything 5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
State court rules that fired Paratransit driver cannot be denied unemployment benefits (Original Post) alp227 Jul 2014 OP
They weren't wrong to fire the guy for refusing to sign the notification rocktivity Jul 2014 #1
K&R! Omaha Steve Jul 2014 #2

rocktivity

(44,555 posts)
1. They weren't wrong to fire the guy for refusing to sign the notification
Thu Jul 3, 2014, 11:19 PM
Jul 2014

Last edited Sun Jul 6, 2014, 02:41 PM - Edit history (5)

but it was an act of insubordination, not misconduct.

They need to adjust their policy so that refusal to accept a disciplinary action equates to a voluntary quit.


rocktivity

Latest Discussions»Latest Breaking News»State court rules that fi...