Skip to main content

Hassan v. Division of Employment Security

Mo. Ct. App.January 15, 2013No. Nos. WD 75005, WD 75006, WD 75007Cited 2 times
Dismissed

Case Details

Judge(s)
Ellis, Newton, Witt
Status
Published
Procedural Posture
Appeal from administrative decision

Related Laws

No specific laws identified for this ruling.

Outcome

The case was dismissed. The Division of Employment Security prevailed in the administrative appeal.

Similar Rulings

June G. Valent v. Board of Review, Department of Labor and Hackettstown Community Hospital
NJSUPERCTAPPDIVJun 2014
Remanded
Edward Ronny Arnold v. Burns Phillips, Commissioner Tennessee Department of Labor And Workforce Development
Tenn. Ct. App.Feb 2018

A state employee who lost his job due to a reduction-in-force was placed on administrative leave with pay and received a severance package. The Department of Labor and Workforce Development denied his claim for unemployment benefits for the period in which he received administrative leave with pay. As the employee acknowledges, he subsequently received the maximum unemployment benefits allowable for the applicable one-year period. Therefore, the employee cannot receive benefits for the contested period, which is the relief sought in this case. This case cannot provide relief to the employee, and the appeal is moot.

Dismissed
Marlo
Ohio Ct. App.Apr 2021

ADMINISTRATIVE LAW - Unemployment Compensation Review Commission denial of unemployment benefits discharged for just cause Department of Transportation substance abuse test refusal to submit upon request insubordination Federal Motor Carrier Safety Regulations urine specimen outside acceptable temperature range failure to provide sufficient specimen evaluation from licensed physician.

Defendant Win
Brunaugh
Ohio Ct. App.May 2024

Denial of unemployment benefits

Unresolvable
Noelle Erling, Relator v. Wells Fargo Bank, N.A., Department of Employment and Economic Development, ...
Minn. Ct. App.Mar 2026

Relator Noelle Erling challenges an unemployment-law judge's (ULJ) determination that her filing of a false compliance form constituted employment misconduct, rendering her ineligible for unemployment benefits. She argues that (1) the ULJ's findings are not supported by substantial evidence; (2) even accepting the findings, her conduct did not rise to the level of employment misconduct; and (3) the ULJ erred by denying relief on her request for reconsideration. We affirm.

Defendant Win

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.