Recently, the unemployment office issued a decision upholding its initial determination that Attorney Murphy’s client was entitled to receive unemployment benefits. The client’s former employer appealed the determination stating the client quit her job by virtue of a “no-call, no show”.  The client’s position was that her employer fired her.  Attorney Murphy prepared his client for the hearing such that it was readily apparent she was a credible and honest individual; and cross-examined the employer at the hearing such that it was apparent the employer’s testimony and evidence failed to support their position.  Indeed, the review examiner found the employer could not establish that Attorney Murphy’s client intentionally quit her job and applied Section 25(e)(2) rather than Section 25(e)(1) of the Massachusetts Unemployment Law.

Attorney Murphy notes that unless employers have an overwhelmingly amount of evidence to support that an employee quit through a “no-call, no show” employers face an uphill battle.  Further, employers using agencies to handle these type of matters are not fairing any better; arguably, agencies are putting employers in worse positions which greatly helped Attorney Murphy’s client in this case.