12. Misconduct

Syntax Corp v Armbruster – 12.05

Syntax Corp v Armbruster
Digest no. 12.05

Section 29(1)(b)

Cite as: Syntax Corp v Armbruster, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued November 1, 1983 (Docket No. 66425).

Appeal pending: No
Claimant: Lynn Armbruster
Employer: Syntax Corporation
Docket no.: B79 20775 71380
Date of decision: November 1, 1983

View/download the full decision

COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: The evidence does not reach the level required to meet the “misconduct” standard.

FACTS: A Referee found that claimant was discharged for misconduct, apparently believing she could not perform at the level she said she could in the job interview. On appeal, the Board of Review reversed, holding that employer had not met its burden of establishing that claimant so overstated her secretarial abilities during the job interview as to be disqualified for misconduct under the statute. The Circuit Court affirmed the decision of the Board of Review.

DECISION: The claimant is not disqualified under Section 29(1)(b) of the Act.

RATIONALE: The Court adopted the language of Dunlap v MESC, 99 Mich App 400, 403; 297 NW2d 682 (1980), Lv den 411 Mich 904 (1981) which says:

“In this case, the act upon which the conclusion of misconduct was based occurred prior to employment. Every minor misstatement on an employment application does not constitute statutory misconduct of a level to justify denial of payment of unemployment compensation benefits.”

In the within case, as in the cited cases, the evidence does not reach the level required to meet the “misconduct” standard. On the contrary, during a five hour interview, plaintiff-employer did little or nothing to test whether defendant Armbruster met the standard that plaintiff now asserts must be met. Whether or not her skills were adequate for the job, there is no evidence that defendant misrepresented them to the degree equivalent to misconduct under the statute.

Digest Author:  Board of Review (original digest here)
Digest Updated: 11/90