Court Opinion

ID: 9729162
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:28:18.511595+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:55.872228
License: Public Domain

DRAPER, P. J.
I concur in the judgment, but only because of the abruptness of the discharge, apparently under a rule established by the employer only simultaneously with appellant’s discharge. I should find it hard to follow King if the employee had wilfully violated an employment rule. To me, it -is most difficult to find a state interest which would compel an employer, who rightfully discharges an employee for good cause, to nonetheless suffer financially because he properly discharged a recalcitrant employee. Yet the “state interest,” which King so carefully preserves, is served only by charging the reserve account of the employer, thils increasing the amount he must pay. Here, however, the employer was not sufficiently interested to appear, and the record therefore requires the reversal.