DIGEST OF ADJUDICATION PRECEDENTS MC
MC-29 (01/11)
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 85.05
DOCKET/DATE ABR-85-4079/10-9-85
AUTHORITY Section 602A of the Act
TITLE Connected with Work
SUBTITLE Off-Duty Illegal Act/Public Trust
CROSS-REFERENCE None
The claimant, a Nursing Assistant employed by a hospital, was arrested near her home and charged with selling cocaine. An
account of her arrest appeared in a local newspaper. It was not alleged that the claimant had obtained the cocaine from the hospital,
or that she had sold it on the hospital premises. In fact, the evidence disclosed that the claimant did not handle drugs while on duty.
Following her conviction for selling cocaine, the claimant was fired.
HELD: A worker's off-duty legal or illegal actions may be connected with the work if the worker's actions adversely affect the
public trust and confidence on which the employer's business is dependent. A hospital, which is entrusted with the treatment and
care of patients, including the legitimate prescription of drugs, is dependent upon the public's trust and confidence, and may expect
a certain standard of conduct from its employees, at work and in the community. In the instant case, the claimant's conduct was
unbecoming a health care worker and could only have tarnished the employer's reputation in the community. Her actions
constituted misconduct connected with her work.
ISSUE/DIGEST CODE Misconduct/MC 85.05
DOCKET/DATE ABR-85-7438/3-13-86
AUTHORITY Section 602A of the Act
TITLE Connected with Work
SUBTITLE Social Relationships
CROSS-REFERENCE MC 485.05, Violation of Company Rule
The claimant, a 30 year old High School Teacher, was physically attracted to one of his 17 year old students, and asked her for a
date. The student did not make a date with the claimant. The claimant persisted in trying to talk with her, including going to the
student's home. Following his visit to her home, the student's mother complained to the high school principal, who issued a
warning to the claimant: He was to have no more personal contact with the student.
Although the claimant did not subsequently meet or talk directly with the student, he did, upon occasion, go out of his way to drive
past her home. Then, at the onset of summer vacation, he went to the student's work place, where he discussed with the student's
work supervisor his (the claimant's) prospects of dating the claimant during the summer. Following this incident, the student's
mother again complained to the claimant's principal, that her daughter was being harassed, whereupon the claimant was
discharged.
HELD: Discharges because of social relationships outside of working hours and away from the employer's premises are not
generally considered to be connected with the work, even though there may be a rule or order prohibiting such relationships.
However, discharges arising out of a worker's private activities may be connected with the work if the acts in question are
sufficiently identified with the work or tend to injure the employer's interests.
In the instant case, the claimant was a teacher. Both he and his employer, a school, were responsible to the community, in that they
had been entrusted to look after the well-being of students - many of them minors. The claimant's conduct toward one of his
students - a minor - was violative of the public's trust, and therefore tended to injure his employer's interests. The claimant's actions
were inherently misconduct connected with his work, regardless of the fact that many of the claimant's acts took place outside of
working hours and away from the employer's premises.
