Waterbury v. Administrator, Unemployment Compensation Act
Citations
- 216 Conn. App. 717
Syllabus
The plaintiff employer, the city of Waterbury, appealed to this court from the judgment of the trial court dismissing its appeal from the decision of the Board of Review of the Employment Security Appeals Division (board), which affirmed the determination by an appeals referee that the defendant claimant was entitled to certain unemployment compensation benefits. The claimant, who had been a firefighter for the plaintiff, was discharged from his employment after testing positive for marijuana in a random drug test. The plaintiff alleged that the positive drug test was in violation of a ''last chance agreement'' that the claimant had previously made with the plaintiff and the claimant's union and other employer policies. The plaintiff contested the claimant's claim for unemployment benefits, asserting that the claimant had been discharged for wilful misconduct under the applicable statute (§ 31-236 (a) (2) (B)). The appeals referee determined that the claimant was a qualifying patient and had been using palliative marijuana prescribed by a physician for post-traumatic stress disorder in accordance with a provision (§ 21a- 408p) of the Palliative Use of Marijuana Act (§ 21a-408 et seq.), and that the plaintiff had failed to allege that the claimant was discharged because he was impaired on the job, in possession of marijuana at work, or selling or trading drugs. The referee further determined that the claimant was not discharged for wilful misconduct because the plaintiff did not demonstrate that the claimant was discharged because he had been disqualified under state or federal law from performing the work for which he was hired as a result of a drug or alcohol testing program mandated by and conducted in accordance with such law. The board affirmed the appeals referee's findings, reasoning that, to the extent the last chance agreement contained a blanket prohibition against the use of palliative marijuana, without specific consideration of the claimant's fitness for
Judges: Cradle; Suarez; Harper
Read full opinion on CourtListenerSourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).
This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.