Court Opinion

ID: 9678232
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:14:51.143809+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:02.865620
License: Public Domain

SCHLEGEL, Judge,
(dissenting).
I respectfully dissent. As in Woods v. Job Service, 327 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa App. 1982), there was ample justification for claimant’s action. His refusal to answer was not even an unequivocal violation of Rule 46, although his employer so interpreted it. Assuming it was a violation of that rule, his concern for his own safety apparently motivated his refusal. Such a refusal is not misconduct. Woods v. Job Service, supra, is appropriate authority for this determination. The refusal to answer may well be grounds for dismissal, but it is not misconduct.