• This page, DC 100.3 Quit v. Discharge, is   offered by
  • Board of Review

DC 100.3 Quit v. Discharge

Click on the case numbers below to access decisions where the Board first determines whether a claimant has resigned or was discharged in order to decide whether a claimant is eligible for benefits under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1) or (2).

0032 2392 04

0032 2392 04 (Mar. 11, 2020)  Employer stopped offering work to the claimant for an unknown reason after the claimant changed his schedule from a full-time to per diem, which the employer said was the only way to get three days off to interview for a second, part-time job. By not offering work, this is deemed to be a layoff and not disqualifying under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).

0024 7294 55

0024 7294 55 (Jan. 17, 2019) – Claimant had permission to leave work for a death in the family and, upon his return from out-of-state, called the employer several times to return to work.  Where employer failed to return his calls, Board concludes that the claimant did not quit, but was discharged.  Because there is no evidence of misconduct, the claimant may not be disqualified under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2).

0019 8267 52

0019 8267 52 (July 17, 2017) – Although the employer officially "discharged" the claimant for job abandonment after leaving work without informing anyone, the Board disqualified her under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1), because the claimant told a human resource officer that she was done and thinking of quitting, she told the president that she was quitting, and she took home most of her personal belongings.

0019 4380 59

0019 4380 59 (June 29, 2017) – Claimant left his shift early after his supervisor warned him not to and was subsequently fired.  The Board disqualified him under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(2) for deliberate misconduct in wilful disregard of the employer's interest.  Being tired did not provide mitigating circumstances. 

0018 7766 38

0018 7766 38 (Nov. 14, 2016) – Because the employer did not accept the terms of claimant’s proposed consulting agreement in lieu of continued employment, the proposal did not amount to a notice of resignation.  The claimant was discharged after the employer hired his replacement and asked him to leave.  There is no evidence of misconduct.

0008 9910 74

0008 9910 74 (June 9, 2014) – When the claimant failed his probationary period as a newly promoted supervisor and was told that he had to reapply for a cashier position, he was effectively discharged.

Help Us Improve Mass.gov  with your feedback

Please do not include personal or contact information.
Feedback