Opinion ID: 2302398
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Gross misconduct and simple misconduct

Text: Although this court has consistently adhered to the foregoing understanding of misconduct for many years and continues to do so today, our law now formally recognizes two kinds of misconduct: Since 1993, the applicable statute has distinguished between gross misconduct and misconduct, other than gross misconduct. For convenience we have referred to the latter as simple misconduct. A discharge for gross misconduct carries a more severe penalty and more demanding requirements for regaining eligibility for benefits than does a discharge for simple misconduct. The statute does not define the terms misconduct, gross misconduct, or other than gross misconduct. Instead, it directs the District of Columba Unemployment Compensation Board to add to its rules and regulations specific examples of behavior that constitute misconduct within the meaning of this subsection. The Board has adopted regulations that define gross and simple misconduct with examples of each. The regulations state that the term gross misconduct means an act which deliberately or willfully violates the employer's rules, deliberately or willfully threatens or violates the employer's interests, shows a repeated disregard for the employee's obligation to the employer, or disregards standards of behavior which an employer has a right to expect of its employee. [3] Other than gross misconduct is defined more broadly to mean an act or omission by an employee which constitutes a breach of the employee's duties or obligations to the employer, a breach of the employment agreement or contract, or which adversely affects a material employer interest. The term encompasses those acts where the severity, degree, or other mitigating circumstances do not support a finding of gross misconduct. [4] Capitol Entertainment, 25 A.3d at 22-23 (footnotes omitted).