Decision Number 1524-BR-92 - Discharge - Sections 8-1002, 8-1002.1, 8-1003 - Maryland Unemployment Decisions Digest - Appeals

BOARD OF APPEALS

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct or misconduct, connected with the work within the meaning of Section 8-1002 or 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF APPEAL TO COURT -

YOU MAY FILE AN APPEAL FROM THIS DECISION IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE LAWS OF MARYLAND. THE APPEAL MAY BE TAKEN IN PERSON OR THROUGH AN ATTORNEY IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF BALTIMORE CITY, IF YOU RESIDE IN BALTIMORE CITY, OR THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY IN MARYLAND IN WHICH YOU RESIDE.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING AN APPEAL EXPIRES October 2, 1992.

APPEARANCES

REVIEW ON THE RECORD

Upon review of the record in this case, the Board of Appeals reverses the decision of the Hearing Examiner.

The claimant was employed from June 1, 1991 until March 31, 1992 as an assistant minister at the New Covenant Church of God.

Prior to his employment, the claimant was involved in an incident of sexual misconduct. This incident occurred almost a year prior to the claimant's employment. No criminal charges were brought against the claimant. The employer learned of the incident through a report to them by the victim.

As a result of the victim reporting the incident to the employer, the claimant was required to make a full report and confession regarding the incident to the employer. The claimant was subsequently suspended.

Section 8-1002 of the Labor and Employment Article defines gross misconduct as conduct of an employee that is a deliberate and willful disregard of standards of behavior that an employing unit rightfully expects and that shows gross indifference to the interests of the employing unit, or repeated violations of employment rules that prove a regular and wanton disregard of the employee's obligations.

In a case of discharge, the burden is on the employer to show that the claimant's action amounts to gross misconduct as defined in Section 8-1002 of the law. The employer has failed to meet its burden in this case. Misconduct which took place prior to the employment is not connected with the work.

The employer did not appear at the hearing to give any testimony as to why the claimant was discharged. The unrefuted testimony of the claimant does not establish that he committed any acts of misconduct connected with the work, as defined in Section 8-1002 or 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article.

DECISION

The claimant was suspended, but not for gross misconduct or misconduct, connected with the work, within the meaning of Section 8-1002 or 8-1003 of the Labor and Employment Article.  No disqualification is imposed based upon his separation from employment with New Covenant Church of God.

The decision of the Hearing Examiner is reversed.

Associate Member
Chairman

DW:K
kbm
COPIES MAILED TO:

CLAIMANT
EMPLOYER
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - BEL AIR

LOWER APPEALS DECISION

DECISION

Issue: Whether the claimant was discharged for gross misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning of the Code of MD, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1002.

- NOTICE OF RIGHT OF FURTHER APPEAL -

ANY INTERESTED PARTY TO THIS DECISION MAY REQUEST A FURTHER APPEAL AND SUCH APPEAL MAY BE FILED IN ANY OFFICE OF THE DEPARTMENT OF ECONOMIC AND EMPLOYMENT DEVELOPMENT, OR WITH THE BOARD OF APPEALS, ROOM 515, 1100 NORTH EUTAW STREET BALTIMORE. MARYLAND 21201, EITHER IN PERSON OR BY MAIL.

THE PERIOD FOR FILING A FURTHER APPEAL EXPIRES ON June 3, 1992.

NOTICE APPEALS FILED BY MAIL, INCLUDING SELF-METERED MAIL, ARE CONSIDERED FILED ON THE DATE OF THE US. POSTAL SERVICE POSTMARK.

APPEARANCES

FINDINGS OF FACT

The claimant was employed as an assistant minister at the New Covenant Church of God from June 1, 1991 until March 31, 1992. He was paid $510.00 weekly.

The employer suspended the claimant because of a legal problem of sexual misconduct with someone outside of the church. This was reported to the Claims Examiner in a telephone call.

The claimant admitted there had been a problem of sexual misconduct, which he chose not to disclose, approximately six to twelve months before he took this job.

CONCLUSIONS OF LAW

In the case of Edgar v. Kane Transfer Company, 33-BR-82, the Board held: gross misconduct where a claimant/truck driver is discharged for losing driving privileges through his own actions.

In this case the claimant accepted a position as an assistant minister knowing that he had a record of sexual misconduct and was subsequently suspended when this came to light.

Even though by the claimant's own admission that this sexual misconduct occurred before he took the position as assistant minister, it is concluded that this was a suspension for gross misconduct as he was under an obligation to report any such conduct to his employer before accepting this position. The determination of the Claims Examiner will be modified to the extent that the claimant was suspended not discharged.

DECISION

It is held that the claimant was suspended for gross misconduct connected with the work, within the meaning of the Code of Maryland, Labor and Employment Article, Title 8, Section 1002. He is disqualified from receiving benefits from the week beginning March 29, 1992 and until he becomes re-employed and earns at least ten times his weekly benefit amount ($2,230.00) and thereafter becomes unemployed through no fault of his own.

The determination of the Claims Examiner is modified.

John F. Kennedy, Jr. Hearing Examiner

Date of Hearing: 05/14/92
ke/Specialist ID: 22152
(Cassette Attached to File)

Copies mailed on 05/19/92 to: 
Claimant
Employer
Unemployment Insurance - Bel Air (MABS)