Court Opinion

ID: 9885026
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-10-06 03:28:02.783067+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:39:31.763106
License: Public Domain

SEDGWICK, Judge
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. Norman’s outburst was not the type of isolated, hotheaded incident recognized by Windsper-ger. Norman was neither harassed nor provoked by Carlson; thus the “hot-headed” element crucial to the Windsperger exception is clearly lacking here.
Norman was fully aware before he met with Carlson that his performance was considered only “acceptable” by the company, and that his salary was to be adjusted accordingly. When he asked whether Carlson did not believe he was doing his job, Norman already knew what Carlson’s response would be. Norman’s reaction was not the type of sudden uncontrolled response to an immediately preceding series of events, accusations or harassment present in other hot-headed incident cases. Rather, crumpling the paper and throwing it at Carlson was a deliberate insult. This was an unprovoked and unwarranted act of contempt towards a superior which not only justified Norman’s discharge, but also constitutes misconduct within the meaning of the unemployment compensation laws. I would affirm the Commissioner’s decision.