employee violation in Kansas

2026It thus affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment. 31 Kan.

1989While an employer may make almost any kind of a rule for the conduct of his employees and under some circumstances may be able to discharge an employee for violation of any rule, such does not, per se, amount to “misconduct” constituting a bar to unemployment compensation benefits.’ [ 97 Idaho at 902 .] *733 Here, there is no evidence of a deliberate violation of the specific rule at issue, or the spirit of the city’s rules of conduct generally, such that Beaty’s off-duty conduct would amount to ‘misconduct’ constituting a bar to unemployment benefits.

1989I.C. § 72-1366(e).” 110 Idaho at 893 .

1980With respect to the existence of a private remedy by the employee for a violation of K.S.A. 44-319(a)(3), we note counsel for amicus points out a statement in Head v. Knopp, 225 Kan. 45, 46 , 587 P.2d 867 (1978), wherein we stated: “K.S.A. 44-319 does not provide a basis for a cause of action . . . .” Amicus suggests that statement establishes actual damages are not recoverable for a violation of K.S.A. 44-319(a)(3).

1980With respect to the existence of a private remedy by the employee for a violation of K.S.A. 44-319(a)(3), we note counsel for amicus points out a statement in Head v. Knopp, 225 Kan. 45, 46 , 587 P.2d 867 (1978), wherein we stated: “K.S.A. 44-319 does not provide a basis for a cause of action . . . .” Amicus suggests that statement establishes actual damages are not recoverable for a violation of K.S.A. 44-319(a)(3).

1961They rely upon San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 , 3 L.

1961They rely upon San Diego Unions v. Garmon, 359 U. S. 236 , 3 L.

1955Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 .

1955Local Union No. 101, 178 Kan. 422 , 286 P. 2d 160 .

1920Co., 179 Fed. 417, 421 .) In the Inman case ( 171 Fed. 185 ), it was held by the United States district court for the northern district of Georgia that an adjudication in involuntary bankruptcy terminates a contract of employment, and that the employee has no claim for damages for breach of the contract provable against the estate in bankruptcy.

1920Co., 179 Fed. 417, 421 .) In the Inman case ( 171 Fed. 185 ), it was held by the United States district court for the northern district of Georgia that an adjudication in involuntary bankruptcy terminates a contract of employment, and that the employee has no claim for damages for breach of the contract provable against the estate in bankruptcy.