On February 17, 2011, the Assembly approved a bill (A3707) to clarify recent changes in the Unemployment Insurance Law regarding disqualification from unemployment insurance benefits for misconduct by claimants. If passed, the bill would add a definition of “simple misconduct” that codifies into the statute the definition of “minor” misconduct found in existing regulations. The bill also would replace the law’s definition of “severe misconduct,” which currently only lists examples, with a comprehensive definition. The definition would include work-connected misconduct other than gross misconduct that either: 1) is committed with malice and deliberate disregard for the property, safety or life of people at the work site or consumers, and consists of violence, threats, theft, or other employee-caused, substantial property or monetary loss; or 2) is comprised of a pattern of instances of simple misconduct that are, after written employer warnings, repeated so frequently that they cause substantial property damage or disruption of employer operations. The bill also would add to the Unemployment Insurance Law the requirement found in existing regulations that the burden of proof is on the employer to demonstrate that employee actions constitute misconduct, and it would add a requirement not in the current regulations that the employer must provide written documentation to show that the employee’s actions constitute simple misconduct, serious misconduct, or gross misconduct.
Beltway Buzz, March 31, 2023
The Beltway Buzz is a weekly update summarizing labor and employment news from inside the Beltway and clarifying how what’s happening in Washington, D.C., could impact your business.
EEOC Approves New Age Bias Regulation
Federal Agency Also Experiences Record-Breaking Year The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) recently approved a draft final regulation that clarifies the Age Discrimination in Employment Act’s (ADEA) “reasonable factors other than age” test. The new standard will make it easier for workers to establish disparate impact claims and will put a heavier burden on
New Year’s Resolution for Missouri Employers: Arbitration Agreements In Light of Jimenez v. Cintas Corporation
Still looking for a New Year’s resolution? The Missouri Court of Appeals rang in 2015 by refusing to enforce an arbitration agreement between an employer and an employee. The decision continues the robust trend in Missouri of restricting the enforceability of arbitration clauses. If your company has an arbitration agreement…..