0031 2994 69 (Nov. 25, 2019) – Teacher hired under special waiver to teach special education students failed to take any steps to obtain the necessary license or to show progress toward meeting the specific requirements of the job. Although he had to take a medical leave in March, he failed to show that he took reasonable steps to obtain the training before the leave, or that he’d planned to do anything between March and the end of the school year. He brought his unemployment on himself and became ineligible for benefits under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1), when the employer declined to renew his contract.
0026 2284 78 (Mar. 28, 2019) – Where the claimant lost his license for not taking a breathalyzer test, the separation is analyzed as one which was claimant-initiated. The claimant did not show that he separated from his job involuntarily due to the effects of alcoholism, as he did not show that he was making sincere efforts to control the alcoholism at the time of the incident that caused his separation. Consequently, the separation is voluntary, and he is denied benefits under G.L. c. 151A, § 25(e)(1). [Note: the District Court affirmed the Board of Review’s decision.]
0017 2240 72 (Sept. 28, 2016) – Notwithstanding the provisions of G.L. c. 94C, § 32L, the claimant commercial truck driver is disqualified from benefits under Olmeda, because he ingested marijuana even though he knew he was subject to random DOT drug testing and would lose his CDL and ability to perform his job if he failed such test. He was at fault for his own separation.
0017 2555 29 (July 29, 2016) – When the claimant was summoned to grand jury service, she was on leave from her full-time employer and eligible for benefits due to urgent, compelling, and necessitous circumstances. Because the claimant was able to work some hours for her employer, she was in partial unemployment.
0013 5701 21 (Apr. 27, 2015) – It was error for the review examiner to conclude that by the claimant accepting a Workers’ Compensation lump sum settlement, it precluded the claimant from continuing to work for the employer as a matter of law, or that by signing the agreement, the claimant voluntarily ended the employment relationship. This is because the Massachusetts Appeals Court has ruled that the statutory presumption under G.L. c. 152, § 48(4) – that such employee is incapable of returning to work for the employer – is rebuttable.