unemployment appeal question

[not_what_you_d_expect]

I doubt you will prevail in an appeal, but no harm in trying. Stranger things have happened.

That you truly don’t seem to get what you did wrong is astounding to me though. I don’t want to see you punished in hell for eternity over it or anything, but it would be great if you could actually learn from this.

Have you tried putting yourself in the shoes of the owner? If it was your store, would you not have felt justified in firing your employee for even considering undercutting you that way?

[alice_in_wonderland]

Look, imagine you catch a burglar in your home before he has a chance to take anything. You still call the cops and have him arrested because he had nefarious intent.

That’s the point you’re missing - you had nefarious intent - had you found someone to buy an item with a large markup, you would have bought it with your discount, sold it for 10% off retail and pocketed the difference - that was your plan all along - to screw your employer out of part of their profit by taking it for yourself. If you can’t see why you were fired for that, or why it would be considered willful misconduct then your moral compass is broken beyond repair.

[Kimmy_Gibbler]

@dunn_ledo

there is nothing in the handbook about it…and when i told them about the ad they said “well thats not what thats for…its for personal use or family members”

It would eliminate uncertainty, I suppose, if your employer could point to a page in the handbook that forbade this practice. However, they don’t need to because employees owe their employers, under principles of agency law, a “duty of loyalty” (Maryland was the first thing I found online, it’s just an example and all the other states have this common law doctrine as well).

One of the textbook examples of breaching the duty of loyalty is to divert, while functioning as an employee, business offers from your employer to yourself. This is plainly what you attempted to do on Craigslist.

[ZenBeam]

I don’t know where the OP is from, but in California, at least, I think he’d have a reasonable chance of receiving benefits. California has a lot of information online. I think the relevant section would be under Misconduct: Attitude towards employer. From that page:

The California District Court of Appeals and the Supreme Court of the United States have commented on the matter of an employee’s loyalty to his employer:

One of the foundation stones of private business is that the employee must be loyal to his employer. Loyalty is implicit in the contract of hiring. No private business can long succeed without the conscientious, undivided support of its employees . . . (P-B-10)

The Supreme Court of the United States has also declared that “There is no more elemental cause for discharge of an employee than disloyalty to his employer.” (NLRB v. IBEW [1953])

Title 22, Section 1256-32 (b) also provides:

An employee owes an implicit duty to support and serve the employer’s interests and not to willfully or wantonly engage in acts or statements which evince an attitude of disregard of the employer’s interests . . .

Common examples of actions or statements which display a poor attitude or disloyalty include:

Aiding the Competitor
Competing with the Employer 
[...]

There’s more, but “Competing with the Employer” looks like the relevant one. It goes on:

When a claimant is discharged for one or several of these actions or statements, the determination of his or her eligibility will follow the general principles provided in Section 1256-32 (b) of Title 22. It provides:

. . . Except in aggravated circumstances, ordinarily the first instance of an employee’s isolated willful or wanton act or statement showing disregard of the employer’s interest would not be sufficiently substantial to constitute misconduct. If the employee continues the acts or statements after warning or reprimand, his or her conduct viewed as a whole may constitute a willful and substantial breach and justify a discharge for misconduct, particularly if the repeated acts or statements occur within a relatively short span of time.

Consideration should be given to whether the act or statement is done or made under aggravated circumstances, whether it is an isolated instance, whether there are prior warnings or reprimands, and whether the repeated acts or statements occur in a short span of time.

The bold parts would seem to be in the OP’s favor.

Certainly it was poor judgment on the OP’s part, and I don’t blame his former employer for letting him go, but that’s not the focus of this thread.

[Kent_Clark]

@dunn_ledo

how can i attempt to sell something that isnt purchased???

Isn’t that exactly what you did?

You took out an ad on Craigslist asking if anyone wanted to buy stuff for less than the going rate. Is that correct?

But when nobody answered, you took the ad down, right?

So what if someone had replied “Hell yes, I want to buy stuff for less than the going rate!” You would have bought the stuff and then sold it to them, true?

Basically, the only thing that went wrong with your plan was that nobody wanted to buy your stuff.

On preview, I’m saying pretty much exactly what **alice in wonderland **said, but I have the feeling it may be necessary to say it many more times in many different ways.

[jjimm]

I actively encourage the OP to appeal. Then post his/her experiences here.

I always like a good giggle.

[dunn_ledo]

@alice_in_wonderland

Look, imagine you catch a burglar in your home before he has a chance to take anything. You still call the cops and have him arrested because he had nefarious intent.

That’s the point you’re missing - you had nefarious intent - had you found someone to buy an item with a large markup, you would have bought it with your discount, sold it for 10% off retail and pocketed the difference - that was your plan all along - to screw your employer out of part of their profit by taking it for yourself. If you can’t see why you were fired for that, or why it would be considered willful misconduct then your moral compass is broken beyond repair.

im not sure how one relates this to burglarly…a burglar isnt invited/welcome in my house…nor is he welcomed to anything in my house…also this is no “store”…this is a corporation…it isnt a best buy or anything like that…but they ship supplies from maine to maryland…

i think its assumed that even after selling something at a discount the company is making a profit…and what steps do they take to assure that people who actually make purchases with the discount arent selling things?

people still coming into this thread like “i still cant believe you see no wrong in what you did”…thats not my point…i do see the wrong…again…that isnt the problem im looking at…
Kunilou…i received dozens(and i mean dozens) of inquiries from interested parties…but i never went through with it…in realizing that it may be frowned upon…
ZenBeam…thanks for the input…its actually Connecticut…im going to have to look into their laws in regards to misconduct

[lawbuff]

@dunn_ledo

i dont want to sue my employer

That, as with any such suit, requires a valid Cause of Action. I am not a lawyer, but personally you don’t have a case.

…i would like employment benefits to hold me over till i find new employment

Most states operate the same way, if an employee is fired “without cause”, one can generally receive unemployment.

The termination can be 100% legal, as far as a wrongful dishcarge suit is conerned, but the unemployment laws do not adhere to such.

State “case law” on what is “just cause” is just that, state specific.

What one state may say it is just cause, another with the same facts would not say it is.

Montana is the only state that has done away with “at will” employment (emphasis added).