Valerie Coykendall, Relator v. EquiMed Corporation, Department of Employment and Economic Development, ...
Case Details
- Status
- Unpublished
- Procedural Posture
- Certiorari appeal from unemployment law judge decision
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
Court of Appeals affirmed the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct and is ineligible for unemployment benefits. The court found substantial evidence supported the misconduct finding and no statutory exceptions applied.
Excerpt
In this certiorari appeal from the decision of an unemployment-law judge (ULJ), relator challenges the ULJ's conclusion that she is ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was discharged for employment misconduct. She argues that (1) the ULJ's determination that she was discharged for employment misconduct was not supported by substantial evidence, and (2) the ULJ erred by failing to consider any exceptions to ineligibility based on employment misconduct. Because we conclude that the ULJ's determination that relator was discharged for employment misconduct was supported by substantial evidence, and none of the statutory exceptions to ineligibility based employment misconduct apply, we affirm.
Similar Rulings
Relator challenges the decision of the unemployment-law judge (ULJ) determining that because relator was discharged for employee misconduct, he is ineligible for unemployment benefits. We affirm.
Relator challenges an unemployment-law judge's determination that she was ineligible for unemployment benefits because she was neither available for nor actively seeking suitable employment. We affirm.
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 2 minutes to see which laws may protect you — it's free, private, and no account is required to start.
This ruling information is sourced from public court records via CourtListener.com. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.