In the case Peterson v. Securitas Security Serv., 2021-Ohio-3254, the Second District Court of Appeals held that the trial court did not err when it affirmed the unemployment review commission’s decision that an employee was discharged for just cause.
Here, the commission argued that the employee was discharged for failing to appear for work or to call and inform the employer of any leave of absence for three consecutive days. The commission further argued that by failing to notify the employer, the employee was considered to have resigned pursuant to the company’s policy.
The employee argued that the employer failed to contact them regarding why the employee did not report for work. The employee further argued that there was no just cause for the employee’s termination. The Court of Appeals disagreed.
The Court reasoned that the record indicated that the employee’s voluntary failure to appear for work or to notify the employer of such absence constituted just cause for termination. As such, the trial court did not err in affirming the commission’s finding of a proper discharge of employment.
To read this case, click here.
Authors: Matthew John Markling and the McGown & Markling Team.
Note: This blog entry does not constitute – nor does it contain – legal advice. Legal jurisprudence is like the always-changing Midwestern weather. As a result, this single blog entry cannot substitute for consultation with a McGown & Markling attorney. If legal advice is needed with respect to a specific factual situation, please feel free to contact a McGown & Markling attorney.