Opinion ID: 1194722
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Standards Applied in Other Jurisdictions with Just Cause Provisions

Text: This case is the first in which we have been asked to apply the just cause provision of our statute. Since the question is one of first impression for this Court, we examine for guidance the decisions of other jurisdictions construing similar statutory language. In Indiana, for example, an employee is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation if discharged for just cause. Ind. Code Ann. § 22-4-15-1(b) (Burns Supp. 1983). The Indiana Code defines discharge for just cause as follows: (e) Discharge for just cause as used in this section is defined to include but not be limited to: ... . (2) Knowing violation of a reasonable and uniformly enforced rule of an employer; ... . (7) Conduct endangering safety of self or coworkers; (8) [A]ny breach of duty in connection with work which is reasonably owed an employer by an employee. Ind. Code Ann. § 22-4-15-1(e) (Burns Supp. 1983). The Indiana Court of Appeals has interpreted just cause as follows: `[J]ust cause,' as used in the Employment Security Act, means failure or volition, and does not mean something blame worthy, culpable, or worthy of censure. Wakshlag v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division, Ind. App., 413 N.E.2d 1078, 1082 (1980). Ohio also disqualifies unemployment compensation claimants who are discharged for just cause. In Harp v. Administrator, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation, 12 Ohio Misc. 34, 37, 230 N.E.2d 376, 379 (Ct. C.P. Hamilton County 1967), the Ohio Court of Common Pleas said, `[J]ust cause' means that if an impartial person examined all the facts and circumstances of the case, he would conclude that the discharge was merited. (Emphasis in original.) That case also involved an employee who was discharged for violation of a company rule. Although the court found that the employee was not discharged for just cause within the meaning of the statute, it did so because it found that the employer did not enforce the rule fairly. Along with Indiana and Ohio, Delaware disqualifies unemployment compensation claimants who are discharged for just cause. According to the Delaware Superior Court, denial of benefits is appropriate where substandard performance is the result of a willful act in violation of the employer's interests and is not the result of mere inefficiency or inadvertence. Starkey v. Unemployment Insurance Appeal Board, Del. Super. Ct., 340 A.2d 165, 166-67 (1975). The claimant in that case was discharged from his position as a grounds keeper because he was slow in performing his duties and spent much of his time talking to people on the street. The court found this sufficient to support a finding of discharge for just cause because the substandard performance was intended and was in violation of the employer's interests. Id. at 167.