Justin Murphy represented an employee who was fired based on “no-call, no show.” At the unemployment hearing it became readily apparent that the employee was a credible individual and needed her job. Upon cross-examination, the employer was unable to provide any credible evidence that the employee failed to report to work without any notice. As such, the Massachusetts Department of Unemployment Assistance (“DUA”) analyzed the case under 25(e)(2) rather than 25(e)(1) of the MA unemployment statute, which put the onus on the employee to prove the employee should not be entitled to benefits.
Mr. Murphy notes that unless employers have an overwhelming 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. From Mr. Murphy’s point of view, agencies are putting employers in worse positions because they are not lawyers. This is what happened in this case.