ment, Edison suspended the officer without pay.
The officer applied for unemployment compensation, which
can be denied if an employee commits “gross misconduct.” The
Township opposed the officer’s application contending that the
arrest, in and of itself, was sufficient to conclude the employee
engaged in “gross misconduct” warranting a complete denial
of unemployment. The officer denied any improper utilization
of the data bank, and the employer provided no supporting information about improper use of the data bank except the fact
that an arrest had been made.
Both the Unemployment Appeal Tribunal, and the Appellate Division, rejected Edison’s claims. The court noted that an
arrest or indictment, standing alone “has no probative value”
– proves nothing – and standing alone does not justify a contention that there was reason to believe there was gross misconduct. The court concluded that this is an insufficient level
of proof to justify a failure to declare an individual eligible for
unemployment compensation.
The case is obviously somewhat unique but bears repeating.
When an individual is suspended without pay pending termination, he/she is entitled to receive unemployment compensation except in instances of “gross misconduct.” Here, while the
allegations forming the basis of the arrest might, if true, constitute such cause, the Township provided no independent proof
of wrongdoing. Put differently, it is not enough for an employer
to simply rely on a third-party arrest or indictment, unless the
employer can also provide enough independent information to
convince the tribunal that determination was indeed for “gross
misconduct.”
As always, we strongly recommend contacting counsel in the
event this issue arises for any officers who are denied unemployment compensation. d
www.njcopsmagazine.com
■ AUGUST 2016 13