Unemployment blues
The newest employment figures are not good.
This morning’s numbers from the federal government show that 9.5 percent of us are unemployed, unchanged from last month’s bleak figure.
Although the unemployment rate remained unchanged, the nation lost 131,000 jobs overall in July.
So someone who gets fired in today’s job environment is really going to need those unemployment benefits.
But recent court decisions from across the country show that employers are fighting tooth and nail to avoid paying up, using everything from slurs against President Obama to unpaid child support to show that an employee’s departure was “for cause.”
Voluntary quit?
Yesterday, the Oregon Supreme Court decided the case of a public school teacher who lost his job after showing part of the movie “Glengarry Glen Ross” to his senior English classes.
The Klamath County School District claimed that teacher Robert McDowell violated the district’s policy requiring preapproval by the school principal before showing students films containing profanity.
McDowell was a probationary first-year teacher, so after the district placed him on administrative leave he figured he was on his way out the door.
His union attorney agreed and advised him to resign before the district took the step of firing him.
After resigning his position, McDowell applied for unemployment benefits.
The district argued that McDowell was ineligible because he had voluntarily quit his position.
The Oregon Supreme Court decided otherwise, concluding that the teacher was entitled to unemployment compensation because he had good cause to resign when he did.
The court said “this case reduces to this: Claimant believed that being discharged would create serious problems for him in obtaining future employment. … Claimant also believed, based on his union’s attorney’s advice, that the school board would follow the personnel director’s discharge recommendation — that is, according to the advice claimant received, there was ‘absolutely no chance’ that the school district would overrule the personnel director’s recommendation. …
“Under those circumstances, would a reasonable and prudent person, of normal sensitivity and exercising ordinary common sense, believe that he faced such a grave situation that leaving work was the only reasonable course for him to take? The only permissible answer to that question on this record is yes.” (McDowell v. Klamath County School District)
Obama slur
Company picnics may be a nice gesture for employee morale.
But sometimes you have to wonder if they’re worth all the broken bones and torn ligaments that you’d expect from having a bunch of out-of-shape workers trying to impress each other in a game of softball they haven’t played in 20 years.
And then there’s the trouble an employee can get in when he lets his hair down and says things better left unsaid.
Take the case of Darwin Holly.
Holly used to work for TAMKO Building Products in Missouri.
That was until May 29, 2009, when he attended a company picnic.
Holly sat down at the picnic with a slice of watermelon and said, “I’m going to sit down and eat my ‘Obama fruit.’”
Understandably, the comment offended Holly’s coworkers and TAMKO fired him for violating the company’s racial harassment policy.
The Missouri Court of Appeals last month agreed that Holly’s conduct at the picnic amounted to misconduct disqualifying him from unemployment benefits.
The court explained that Holly “signed several acknowledgements over the course of his employment that he was aware of TAMKO’s harassment policy and its restrictions. [Holly] admits that on his own volition, he made the comment that he was eating ‘Obama Fruit’ in reference to the slice of watermelon he was eating. …
“[H]ere the [Missouri Industrial] Commission did not have to determine that the phrase ‘Obama fruit’ would be racial harassment in all circumstances, but only had to determine if it constituted racial harassment in this situation and context.” (Holly v. Tamko Building Products)
Unpaid child support
James Lawrence is learning the hard way that not meeting your child support obligations can have consequences beyond hurting your kids and their mother.
The Minnesotan used to work as an over-the-road truck driver for Ratzlaff Motor Express.
That was until his driver’s license was suspended because his child support was not paid.
A truck driver without a license is about as useful as you-know-what on a bull.
So Ratzlaff Motors let Lawrence go on May 2, 2009.
A state unemployment judge decided that Lawrence was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he was fired for employment misconduct.
The Minnesota Court of Appeals last month agreed with that conclusion.
“We conclude that [Lawrence] engaged in intentional, negligent, or indifferent conduct that resulted in the loss of a license necessary for the performance of his job duties, and therefore engaged in employment misconduct,” the court said. (Lawrence v. Ratzlaff Motor Express)
- Pat Murphy
