• This page, DC 500.00 Poor Performance , is   offered by
  • Board of Review

DC 500.00 Poor Performance

Click on the case numbers below to access eligibility decisions addressing whether a claimant was fired for poor work performance.

0030 2225 88

0030 2225 88 (Aug. 30, 2019) After the employer changed the claimant’s shift start time from 2:00 p.m. to 6:00 a.m., the claimant was often late to work. Although the claimant received multiple warnings for this conduct, she is not subject to disqualification under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2), because she was making sincere, good faith efforts to try to get to work on time, but was not able to do so on many occasions.

0019 6517 85

0019 6517 85 (Mar. 21, 2017) – After a 6-month probationary period was extended due to the employer's concern about the claimant's work effort, he was caught playing video games on his cell phone instead of cleaning the shop. This was deliberate misconduct, not non-disqualifying poor performance.

0002 1755 35

0002 1755 35 (Aug. 6, 2014) – A week after discharging the claimant property manager for poor job performance connected to unreconciled deficiencies in the accounts receivable, the employer uncovered an embezzlement scheme. In disqualifying the claimant for deliberate misconduct, the Board accepted the employer’s “after acquired evidence,” because it was linked substantively to the reason for the claimant’s discharge.

0008 9856 93

0008 9856 93 (Jan. 9, 2014) – A claimant who refused to sign a last chance agreement in lieu of termination did not separate from her job voluntarily; she was fired. Since the underlying conduct was the claimant’s poor work performance and there was no evidence that the claimant acted wilfully or deliberately, the Board held that she may not be disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).


BR-110349 (June 6, 2010) – Prior to a planned termination date for poor performance, the claimant engaged in deliberate misconduct and was fired immediately. Because the deliberate misconduct, and not an inability to perform, severed her employment, a majority of the Board denied benefits under G.L. c. 151A, sec. 25(e)(2). One member filed a dissenting opinion.


BR-109435 (Mar. 15, 2010) – Where medical evidence showed that claimant's difficulty concentrating was due to an allergic reaction to mold in the work environment, claimant's errors were not deliberate. A claimant who is discharged for poor performance is entitled to benefits.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.