Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Sondra Irving v. Employment Appeal Board

Supreme Court of Iowa

Decided June 3, 2016No. 15–0104Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWaterman, Justice

I respectfully dissent in part. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that Irving’s misconduct termination from her part-time job with employer Solon Nursing disqualified her from unemployment benefits for that position alone.4 But I would affirm *212the district court and agency determination that Irving was properly denied unemployment benefits for missing three weeks of work without her employer’s permission while she was incarcerated on charges of felony domestic abuse and making a false report calling 911. Iowa employers are entitled to expect their employees to show up for work. Being in…

2Cases cited16 opinions

  1. Ohio Bureau of Employment Services v. HodorySupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Oyens Feed & Supply, Inc. v. PrimebankSupreme Court of Iowa · 2011
  3. State of Iowa v. Trent D. SmithSupreme Court of Iowa · 2016
  4. Messina v. Iowa Department of Job ServiceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1983
  5. Higgins v. Iowa Department of Job ServiceSupreme Court of Iowa · 1984

11 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API