Court Opinion

ID: 9729500
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:38:13.729402+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:58.960784
License: Public Domain

GRAVES, Senior Judge,
dissenting.
Respectfully, I dissent. The proof does not disclose that failure to perform work was intentional, willful, wanton, or grossly negligent.
Because unemployment compensation law is remedial humanitarian legislation, the standards for denying unemployment benefits to a discharged employee following termination are stringent. They require a malicious intent and deliberate ac*89tions, on the part of the employee, to harm the business interests of the employer. The Appellant’s mere failure to satisfactorily perform his job duties, while justifying the employer’s decision to terminate his employment, does not rise to the level of “misconduct” for purposes of determining eligibility for unemployment insurance pursuant to KRS 341.370(l)(b), and the Appellee has offered no proof of the malicious intent required for denial of unemployment benefits.
Since negligence in job performance does not constitute misconduct, the facts of this case do not support a finding of misconduct.