 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Gupta v. Deputy Director of the Division of Employment & Training11/29/2004
Middlesex.
April 13, 2004.
Department of Employment and Training. Administrative Law, Judicial review, Agency's interpretation of statute, Substantial evidence. Employment Security, Eligibility for benefits, Misconduct by employee. Statute, Construction.
Civil action commenced in the Cambridge Division of the District Court Department on February 27, 2002.
The case was heard by Robert P. Ziemian, J.
This is an appeal pursuant to G. L. c. 151A, § 42, from a District Court decision upholding the determination of the Division of Employment and Training (DET) that the plaintiff, Ashok K. Gupta, was ineligible to collect unemployment compensation benefits under G. L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2), because he had been discharged for having engaged in "deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of [his employer's] interest." Gupta contends that (1) the DET erred as matter of law when it disqualified him for benefits based on the "deliberate misconduct" prong of § 25(e)(2), because his employer had expressly discharged him for a "work rule violation," the alternative basis for ineligibility under § 25(e)(2); and (2) even if it was proper to deny him unemployment benefits on the ground of "deliberate misconduct," the DET's decision was not supported by substantial evidence and was additionally erroneous because the review examiner used an "objective" rather than a "subjective" standard to determine his state of mind. We affirm.
Background
Gupta, a native of India , was employed at Lightbridge, Inc. (Lightbridge), as a credit analyst from November 10, 1999, until his discharge on August 20, 2001. Lightbridge operates a telephone call center where sellers of cellular telephones (dealers) obtain credit checks on prospective customers. Gupta's responsibilities included answering calls from dealers and running credit checks. Lightbridge's customer service procedures set forth the company's expectations of its employees' behavior in handling dealer phone calls. The procedure at issue here explicitly states that " ny incidences, i.e. disconnecting calls, not answering calls, unprofessional conduct while on the phone . . . or anything that causes an adverse business impact on Lightbridge, Inc. (complaint from client or agent, financial loss or client loss, etc.) may result in corrective action." Gupta, however, claimed never to have received a copy of these procedures.
Prior to his termination, Gupta had been the subject of two complaints from dealers as a result of their interactions with him. The first incident occurred on December 24, 1999. After a dealer asked Gupta to repeat himself, he replied, " hat do you mean I'm speaking to you in English," and disconnected the call, ignoring the dealer's request to speak with a supervisor. Gupta received a verbal warning and an "Employee Corrective Action Form" (corrective action form) in consequence of this complaint, both instructing him to find a supervisor "immediately no matter the reason" upon request by a dealer and admonishing that he would be subject to disciplinary action for " ny further infractions of this or any other company policy." Gupta signed the corrective action form, acknowledging that the situation had been reviewed with him.
The second warning came on January 3, 2000, after a different dealer called Lightbridge crying and reporting that Gupta had been rude and uncooperative. Gupta was again spoken to and received another corrective action form, which noted that he had already received a verbal warning, that as an analyst he was aware that he was "responsible for providing polite, friendly and helpful customer service," and that he knew "to ask for assistan
Page 1 2 3 4 5 6 Massachusetts Classifieds
Classified Postings
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Classified Postings in your area.
|
|