(a) For benefit years beginning prior to July 1, 2012, an individual who has been discharged
for proved misconduct connected with his or her work shall become ineligible for waiting
period credit or benefits for the week in which that discharge occurred and until
he or she establishes to the satisfaction of the director that he or she has, subsequent
to that discharge, had at least eight (8) weeks of work, and in each of that eight
(8) weeks has had earnings of at least twenty (20) times the minimum hourly wage as
defined in chapter 12 of this title for performing services in employment for one
or more employers subject to chapters 42 — 44 of this title. For benefit years beginning
on or after July 1, 2012, and prior to July 6, 2014, an individual who has been discharged
for proved misconduct connected with his or her work shall become ineligible for waiting
period credit or benefits for the week in which that discharge occurred and until
he or she establishes to the satisfaction of the director that he or she has, subsequent
to that discharge, had at least eight (8) weeks of work, and in each of that eight
(8) weeks has had earnings greater than, or equal to, his or her weekly benefit rate
for performing services in employment for one or more employers subject to chapters
42 — 44 of this title. For benefit years beginning on or after July 6, 2014, an individual
who has been discharged for proved misconduct connected with his or her work shall
become ineligible for waiting period credit or benefits for the week in which that
discharge occurred and until he or she establishes to the satisfaction of the director
that he or she has, subsequent to that discharge, had earnings greater than, or equal
to eight (8) times, his or her weekly benefit rate for performing services in employment
for one or more employers subject to chapters 42 — 44 of this title. Any individual
who is required to leave his or her work pursuant to a plan, system, or program, public
or private, providing for retirement, and who is otherwise eligible, shall under no
circumstances be deemed to have been discharged for misconduct. If an individual is
discharged and a complaint is issued by the regional office of the National Labor
Relations board or the state labor relations board that an unfair labor practice has
occurred in relation to the discharge, the individual shall be entitled to benefits
if otherwise eligible. For the purposes of this section, “misconduct” is defined as
deliberate conduct in willful disregard of the employer’s interest, or a knowing violation
of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule or policy of the employer, provided that
such violation is not shown to be as a result of the employee’s incompetence. Notwithstanding
any other provisions of chapters 42 — 44 of this title, this section shall be construed
in a manner that is fair and reasonable to both the employer and the employed worker.
(b) For the purposes of chapters 42 — 44 of this title, a suspension without pay from
work for proved misconduct shall be treated as a discharge for proved misconduct and
subject to the same conditions as a discharge for proved misconduct in accordance
with subsection (a) of this section.
Notes of Decisions
Foster-Glocester Reg'l Sch. Comm. v. Bd. of Review, 854 A.2d 1008 (R.I. 2004).
· cites it 14× “The director determined that Bailey was discharged under “non-disqualifying circumstances” as provided by G.L.1956 § 28-44-18. The school committee appealed from the director’s decision.”
Lee v. Rhode Island Council 94, A.F.S.C.M.E., Local 186, 796 A.2d 1080 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 17× “The DET referee concluded that the claimant was discharged under disqualifying circumstances within the meaning of G.L. 1956 § 28-44-18 *1083 of the Rhode Island Employment Security Act.”
St. Pius X Par. Corp. v. Murray, 557 A.2d 1214 (R.I. 1989).
· cites it 16× “The employer argues, however, that even though employee may qualify to receive benefits under § 28-44-68, she is ineligible to receive those benefits as she was “discharged for proved misconduct” under § 28-44-18. 2 Pursuant to § 28-44-18, *1217 “[a]n individual who has been…”
Turner v. Dep't of Emp. Sec., Bd. of Review, 479 A.2d 740 (R.I. 1984).
· cites it 7× “1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-18. That section provides in part that “[a]n individual who has been discharged for proved misconduct connected with his work shall thereby become ineligible for benefits * * The director stated in his decision that “[a]n individual who is…”
Wilkinson v. State Crime Lab'y Comm'n, 788 A.2d 1129 (R.I. 2002).
· cites it 2× “Initially, the director of the Department of Employment Security (DES) denied Wilkinson’s claim, stating that he had been discharged for “proved misconduct,” and was thereby barred from receiving unemployment benefits by G.L. 1956 § 28-44-18. The defendants URI and the…”
Technic, Inc. v. Rhode Island Dep't of Emp. & Training, 669 A.2d 1156 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 7× “In challenging its former employee’s claim for employment-security benefits, petitioner argued that claimant was subject to disqualification under the provisions of § 28-44-18 because he had been discharged for proved misconduct.”
Bunch v. Bd. of Review, Rhode Island Dep't of Emp. & Training, 690 A.2d 335 (R.I. 1997).
· cites it 2× “As superintendent of the training school, she had an obligation to maintain standards of conduct at the very least in compliance with the criminal law both on and off the job. To possess controlled substances and drug-related paraphernalia in her home was completely to violate…”
Chartier v. Dept. of Emp. Training, 673 A.2d 1078 (R.I. 1996).
· cites it 9× “In a decision dated July 6, 1993, the director determined that employee was discharged under disqualifying circumstances pursuant to G.L. 1956 § 28-44-18 and therefore denied employee’s claim for employment benefits.”
Elias v. Youngken, 493 A.2d 158 (R.I. 1985).
“Elias is considered by the University to have been involuntarily terminated as of July 7, 1978, but not for such misconduct as would disqualify him from receiv[ing] unemployment compensation benefits pursuant to § 28-44-18 of the General Laws of Rhode Island.”
Hackett v. Murray, 508 A.2d 649 (R.I. 1986).
“1956 (1979 Reenactment) § 28-44-18. This protest resulted in a determination by the director that claimant was discharged by the city under disqualifying conditions and that she was not entitled to benefits but was required to reimburse the department for the $1,173 in benefits…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.