After pleading guilty to harassing several women, including a co-worker, Frank Vetro got booted from his post as a high school principal. When he later applied for unemployment benefits, his claim was rejected because he'd been fired for "misconduct."
While Vetro argued his convictions weren't work related, the Appellate Division, Third Department, still thought he couldn't recover any compensation because any off-the-job behavior which raised "serious questions" about his integrity fell within the "misconduct" ambit.
How principalled was that?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use this link: Matter of Vetro (Commissioner of Labor)