Kirk Balay lost his job as a security officer because he repeatedly used his personal cell phone while at work (even though he had been repeatedly warned not to do so). When he later filed for unemployment, he was denied benefits because he had been terminated for "misconduct."
On appeal, the Appellate Division, Third Department, agreed that the knowing violation of workplace policies is a basis for disqualification--particularly when an employee has been repeatedly warned to refrain from the behavior in question.
What were they trying to signal there?
To view a copy of the Appellate Division's decision, please use the following link: Matter of Balay (Commissioner of Labor)