deliberate violation in District of Columbia

1999Hickenbottom's definition of misconduct was as follows: Misconduct must be [1] an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, [2] a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, [3] a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or [4] negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer. 273 A.2d at 477-78 (citation omitted). 7 .

1994In Hickenbottom v. District of Columbia Unemployment Compensation Bd., 273 A.2d 475, 477-78 (D.C.1971), we defined misconduct as: [1] an act of wanton or wilful disregard of the employer’s interest, [2] a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, [3] a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or [4] negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer’s interest or of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.

1994Id. (citations omitted); see also Williams v. District Unemployment Compensation Bd., 383 A.2d 345, 349 (D.C.1978).

1983(Citation omitted.) Any one of these grounds constitutes “misconduct” justifying disqualification. 2 But we also have stated that a “discharge from employment for violation of an employer’s rules, or for any other type of alleged misconduct, does not constitute ‘misconduct’ per se.” Williams v. District Unemployment Compensation Board, 383 A.2d 345, 349 (D.C.1978) (citing Hickenbottom, supra).

2015On the 1 Riddick v. United States, 995 A.2d 212, 216 (D.C. 2010) (internal quotation marks omitted). 18 contrary, I think the trial judge reasonably concluded, after a full and deliberate inquiry, that the proffered evidence lacked legitimate probative value, and thus its exclusion was well within the ambit of the judge‟s discretion.

1990In Curtis v. District of Columbia Dep’t of Employment Servs., 490 A.2d 178, 179 (D.C.1985), we stated: The burden of proving misconduct within the meaning of § 46-lll(b) is upon the employer. [Citations omitted.] *446 Where the misconduct consists of a violation of rules of the employer, the rules must be reasonable; their existence must have been made known to the employees, and they must be consistently enforced. [Citations omitted.] Sworn testimony is required in contested cases_ [Citations omitted.] The agency must make a finding of fact on each material issue of fact and those findings mu