Sheila Balbiani Intro to Legal Analysis and Writing
PA205-02
December 2, 2014
Mitchell v. Lovington Good Samaritan Center, Inc., 555 P.2d 696 (1976)
Issue
The issue is whether petitioner’s actions constituted misconduct so as to disqualify her from certain unemployment compensation benefits.
Rule
The term “misconduct” in the Unemployment Compensation Law. The Wisconsin Supreme Court in Boynton Cab Co. v. Neubeck, 237 Wis. 249, 259-60, N.W. 636, 640 (1941) examined the misconduct subsection of its unemployment compensation act, found no definition of misconduct, but did come up with:
Misconduct is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer’s interests as isfound in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interests or of the employee’s duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances, or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed ‘misconduct’ within the meaning of the
