In re Lennane
Case Details
- Status — whether other courts must follow this ruling
- Published
- Procedural Posture — the stage the case had reached
- appeal
- State
- North Carolina
Related Laws
No specific laws identified for this ruling.
Outcome
The North Carolina Supreme Court affirmed that Lennane was disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits because he failed to show that his leaving work was attributable to his employer under N.C.G.S. § 96-14.5(a).
Excerpt
Whether an individual's leaving work was attributable to his employer as required by N.C.G.S. 96-14.5 (2021) to avoid disqualification for unemployment benefits.
Similar Rulings
Whether an individual may bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.
Whether an individual may bring a claim under the North Carolina Constitution for a school board's deliberate indifference to continual student harassment.
Whether a notice of lease termination provided to a tenant of public housing by a public housing authority stated specific grounds for termination as required by 24 C.F.R. 966.4(l)(3)(ii) (2019).
Administrative Law North Carolina Human Resources Act Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to vacate petitioner's award of back pay and attorneys' fees.
Administrative Law North Carolina Human Resources Act Whether the Court of Appeals erred in its decision to vacate petitioner's award of back pay and attorneys' fees.
Browse Related
Facing something similar at work?
Court rulings like this one are useful, but every situation is different. Take 3 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. Case outcomes, claim types, and summaries are extracted using AI analysis and may be incomplete or inaccurate. It is provided for informational and educational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice.
See something wrong, or named in this ruling and want it corrected or redacted? Request a correction.