Shatzman & Assoc. v. Rose, UIA Digest No. 12.156 Section 421.29(b) Cite as: Shatzman & Assoc v Rose, Unpublished Opinion of the Michigan Court of Appeals, Issued November 3, 2000 (Docket No. 96-533137). View/download the full decision Appeal Pending: No Claimant: Beth Rose Employer: Shatzman & Associates Tribunal: Michigan Court of Appeals Date of Decision:… Read More »
Gallagher v Montcalm County Digest no. 12.153 Section 29(1)(b) Cite as: Gallagher v Montcalm Co, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals, issued August 17, 1999 (Docket No. 203429). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Dale Gallagher Employer: Montcalm County Docket no.: 96-000348-AE Date of decision: August 17, 1999 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: A claimant’s indirect and belated efforts… Read More »
HOLDING: Claimant is not subject to disqualification under Section 29(1)(i) unless the common law elements of theft are established.
Hoag v. Emro Marketing Digest No. 12.141 Section 421.29(1)(b) Cite as: Hoag v Emro Mktg, unpublished opinion of the Maycomb County Circuit Court, issued April 9, 1999 (Docket No. 98-4783-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Jeffery A. Hoag Employer: Emro Marketing Docket no.: 98-4783-AE Date of decision: April 9, 1999 View/download the full decision HOLDING: Recurrences… Read More »
Smith v. DoC, MESC Digest No. 12.150 Section 421.29(1)(b) Cite as: Smith v Dep’t of Corrections, unpublished opinion of the Kent Circuit Court, issued April 1, 1996 (Docket No. 95-1797-AE). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Wayne E. Smith Employer: Michigan Department of Corrections Docket no.: 95-1797-AE Date of decision: April 1, 1996 View/download the full decision… Read More »
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING: Claimants discharged for using illegal drugs as part of a religious sacrament may be disqualified from receipt of unemployment compensation benefits without violation of First Amendment protections of the free exercise of religion.
Broyles v Aeroquip Corp Digest no. 12.30 Section 29(1)(b) Cite as: Broyles v Aeroquip Corp, 176 Mich App 175 (1989). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Thomas Broyles Employer: Aeroquip Corporation Docket no.: B86 05457 104075 Date of decision: March 21, 1989 View/download the full decision COURT OF APPEALS HOLDING: Use of vulgar or abusive language can constitute… Read More »
UNITED STATES SUPREME COURT HOLDING: When a State denies receipt of a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on an adherent to modify his behavior and violate his beliefs, that denial must be subjected to strict scrutiny and can be justified only by proof of a compelling state interest. The First Amendment protects the free exercise rights of employees who adopt religious beliefs or convert from one faith to another after being hired.
Brown v MESC Digest no. 12.13 Section 29(1)(b) Cite as: Brown v MESC, unpublished opinion of the Court of Appeals of Michigan, issued December 17, 1986, (Docket No. B84 06483 97069W). Appeal pending: No Claimant: Robert Charles Brown Employer: Ford Motor Company Docket no.: B84 06483 97069W Date of decision: December 17, 1986 View/download the full decision… Read More »
Tuck v. ESC Digest No. 12.52 Section 421.29 Cite as: Tuck v ESC, 152 Mich App 579 (1986). Court: Michigan Court of Appeals Appeal pending: No Claimant: Dave W. Tuck Employer: Ashcraft’s Market, Inc. Date of decision: April 24, 1986 View/download the full decision HOLDING: Breach of rules, negligence, or good faith error in judgment… Read More »