SCHWARTZ, Chief Judge.
The appeals referee found that the appellant was discharged because "on September 4, 1996, [he] refused to work with the owner's wife." Contrary to the conclusions below, this behavior did not amount to "misconduct" which disqualified him from unemployment compensation benefits. Phanco v. Unemployment Appeals Comm'n,
Welcome to the leading source of independent legal reporting
Let's get started
Sign on now to see your case.
Or view more than 10 million decisions and orders.