Connecticut Court of Appeals, 1985

Bailey v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act

Connecticut Court of Appeals · Decided April 9, 1985

3 Conn. App. 494; 490 A.2d 92; 1985 Conn. App. LEXIS 900

Cases that cite this one

10 later published cases cite this decision.

Williams v. Admstr., Unemploymnt Comp. Act, No. Cv99 0424969 (Nov. 18, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
Gordon v. Adm., Unemployment Comp. Act, No. Cv98-0412917 (Sep. 30, 1999) (Connecticut Superior Court 1999)
George Schmitt Co. v. Administrator, No. Cv-96-0388939 (Mar. 7, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Bill's A. C. Refr. v. Administrator, No. Cv90 0109569 S (Jul. 16, 1991) (Connecticut Superior Court 1991)
Todd v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act (Conn. App. Ct. 1985)
State v. Gore, No. Mv-99-641414 (Oct. 9, 2001) (Connecticut Superior Court 2001)
Martinez v. the Administrator, No. Cv-97-0570777 (Jan. 16, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Parikh v. Administrator, No. Cv97-74632 (Jun. 12, 1998) (Connecticut Superior Court 1998)
Technical Coatings v. Administrator, No. Cv95-551389 (Sep. 9, 1997) (Connecticut Superior Court 1997)
Evans v. Administrator, No. Cv92 0339365 (Nov. 5, 1993) (Connecticut Superior Court 1993)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

Opinion of the Court

Per Curiam.

This is an appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court dismissing the plaintiff’s appeal from the decision of the employment security board of review denying the plaintiff unemployment benefits. The plaintiff was employed as a private duty nurse’s aide for a period of approximately three years, until she was discharged for wilful misconduct. The board *495of review essentially adopted the findings of the appeals referee who found that the plaintiff had deliberately violated rules of conduct established by the employer, ranging from conflicts with fellow workers to disloyalty and insubordination.

The plaintiff principally claims that the board of review acted unreasonably, arbitrarily or illegally, and, therefore, the decision denying her eligibility for benefits should be overturned. Pursuant to General Statutes § 31-236 (2) (B), an individual is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits if he is discharged for repeated wilful misconduct in the course of his employment. In this context, “wilful misconduct” refers to conduct evincing a wilful disregard of an employer’s interest such as deliberate violations of the employer’s procedures or a disregard of expected standards of behavior. Hannon v. Administrator, 29 Conn. Sup. 14, 17, 269 A.2d 80 (1970); see also DeMilo v. West Haven, 189 Conn. 671, 678, 458 A.2d 362 (1983). Wilful misconduct includes deliberate disobedience or the intentional violation of a known rule. A. C. Gilbert Co. v. Kordorsky, 134 Conn. 209, 211-12, 56 A.2d 169 (1947); Bigelow Co. v. Waselik, 133 Conn. 304, 308, 50 A.2d 769 (1946).

In appeals of this nature, the Superior Court does not try the matter de novo and is bound by the findings of subordinate facts and reasonable conclusions made by the appeals referee. Robinson v. Unemployment Security Board of Review, 181 Conn. 1, 4-5, 434 A.2d 293 (1980); Lazarcheck v. Administrator, 1 Conn. App. 591, 594, 474 A.2d 465 (1984).

Perusal of the referee’s findings reveals that the plaintiff’s conduct extended beyond mere inefficiency, inability or misjudgment.

*496The referee’s conclusion that the plaintiff had engaged in repeated wilful misconduct was supported by the subsidiary facts found and was not unreasonable or arbitrary.

There is no error.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.