NEW YORK UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE - FALSE JOB APPLICATION

This case also appears to differentiate itself from prior strict holdings as it discusses "puffing" ones resume (emphasis supplied):

"Index 1150A-5

NEW YORK STATE DEPARTMENT OF LABOR
UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE DIVISION
ADJUDICATION SERVICES OFFICE

JANUARY 6, 1959

INTERPRETATION SERVICE - BENEFIT CLAIMS
MISCONDUCT
Other Offenses
A.B. 67,034-58


MISCONDUCT, QUESTION OF - PERIOD OF EMPLOYMENT EXAGGERATED

"Puffing" the length of previous employment on an application in order to obtain a job does not constitute misconduct.

Referee's Decision: The referee sustained the initial determination of the local office disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits for seven consecutive weeks effective May 20, 1958 on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection with his employment.

Appealed By: Claimant.

Findings of Fact: Claimant is an electrician by trade. Because of his age his efforts to obtain employment in that field failed. Claimant as an alternative applied for a position as a maintenance man with a resident hotel located in midtown Manhattan. He was required to file an application for such job and indicate therein his previous work history. Claimant wanted the job desperately. He submitted a record of employment going back to 1933. In his over zealousness he exaggerated the period of his employment with a previous employer by indicating that he worked for such employer for a period of three years from 1953 to 1956, whereas in fact, he only worked there for about three months on two occasions in 1954 and 1956.Claimant was hired on May 6, 1958. On May 19, 1958, after the employer discovered that claimant had exaggerated the length of his prior employment, he was discharged. Save for such untruth, claimant admittedly did not withhold any information which would be derogatory to him. Claimant's previous employers reported no unfavorable criticism wit respect to either his integrity or industry.

Claimant filed an application for benefits on May 23, 1958. Based on the facts recited above, the local office issued an initial determination disqualifying him from receiving benefits for seven consecutive weeks on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection with his employment.

Appeal Board Opinion and Decision: In sustaining the initial determination, the referee held that the furnishing of false information in connection with his application for employment constituted misconduct within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law. In view of the particular facts and circumstances herein, we do not agree with the conclusion reached by the referee.

It is true that claimant exaggerated the extent of his previous employment in order to obtain a job. The representative of the employer who appeared at the hearing before the referee conceded that in discharging claimant his honesty was not impugned.

We do not question the employer's right to discharge claimant because it was displeased with claimant's conduct. However, since claimant's act was not for the purpose of concealing a questionable past, we believe that it did not constitute misconduct within the meaning of the Unemployment Insurance Law and did not warrant so serious a charge with such drastic consequences.The initial determination of the local office disqualifying claimant from receiving benefits on the ground that he lost his employment through misconduct in connection with his employment is overruled. The decision of the referee is reversed. (December 17, 1958)