deliberate violation in Virginia

2009Branch v. Va. Employment Comm’n, 219 Va. 609, 611 , 249 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). [M]isconduct is defined in the disjunctive so that either a deliberate violation of a rule or an act or omission showing willful disregard of the employer’s interest disqualifies a claimant for benefits.

2009Branch v. Va. Employment Comm’n, 219 Va. 609, 611 , 249 S.E.2d 180, 182 (1978). [M]isconduct is defined in the disjunctive so that either a deliberate violation of a rule or an act or omission showing willful disregard of the employer’s interest disqualifies a claimant for benefits.

2018Seibert recognized, as explained below, a narrow exception to Elstad "applicable only in the infrequent case" where the police have used "a two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of Miranda ." Seibert , 542 U.S. at 620 -22 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). 9 In Seibert , after her bedridden son, Jonathan, died in his sleep, Seibert feared charges of neglect.

2018Seibert recognized, as explained below, a narrow exception to Elstad "applicable only in the infrequent case" where the police have used "a two-step questioning technique based on a deliberate violation of Miranda ." Seibert , 542 U.S. at 620 -22 , 124 S.Ct. 2601 (Kennedy, J., concurring in judgment) (emphasis added). 9 In Seibert , after her bedridden son, Jonathan, died in his sleep, Seibert feared charges of neglect.

1994See Beck v. State, 261 Ga. 826 , 412 S.E.2d 530 (1992); State v. Laster, 223 Mont. 152 , 724 P.2d 721 (1986).

1994See Beck v. State, 412 S.E.2d 530 (Ga. 1992); State v. Laster, 724 P.2d 721 (Mont. 1986).

2015The commission concluded that claimant’s actions were not “‘of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligation he owes his employer.’” Id. (quoting Richmond Cold Storage Co. v. Burton, 1 Va. App. 106, 111 , 335 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1985)).

2015The commission concluded that claimant’s actions were not “‘of such a nature or so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard of those interests and the duties and obligation he owes his employer.’” Id. (quoting Richmond Cold Storage Co. v. Burton, 1 Va. App. 106, 111 , 335 S.E.2d 847, 850 (1985)).

2008In this respect, “Seibert, rather than overruling Elstad , carved out an exception to Elstad for cases in which a deliberate, two-step strategy was used by law enforcement to obtain the postwarning confession.” United States v. Carter, 489 F.3d 528, 535-36 (2d Cir.2007) (emphasis added) (joining “all of our sister circuits that have decided the issue” in holding that “Seibert lays out an exception to Elstad ”). 19 In a footnote, ante at 342 n. 9, 663 S.E.2d at 513 n. 9, the majority defends its reliance on the four-justice Seibert opinion on the ground that Justice Kennedy agreed with the plur

1992Absent evidence to “explain or justify” such misconduct and “show mitigating circumstances, the commission must find that benefits are barred.” Id. at 635 , 376 S.E.2d at 811 ; Robinson v. Hurst Harvey Oil, Inc., 12 Va. App. 936, 940 , 407 S.E.2d 352, 354 (1991).

1992Absent evidence to “explain or justify” such misconduct and “show mitigating circumstances, the commission must find that benefits are barred.” Id. at 635 , 376 S.E.2d at 811 ; Robinson v. Hurst Harvey Oil, Inc., 12 Va. App. 936, 940 , 407 S.E.2d 352, 354 (1991).

1992Thus, "[b]y definition,” the rule establishes that conduct determined by the employer to be consistent with its legitimate business interests, and a deliberate violation creates “a prima facie case of misconduct.” Id. at 634-35 , 376 S.E.2d at 811 (emphasis added).

1992Thus, "[b]y definition,” the rule establishes that conduct determined by the employer to be consistent with its legitimate business interests, and a deliberate violation creates “a prima facie case of misconduct.” Id. at 634-35 , 376 S.E.2d at 811 (emphasis added).