Publisher's Notebook

If you and your law firm ever have had to deal with a “difficult” employee, here’s one for you.

A medical clinic in Salem hired a guy named Jones to serve primarily as their receptionist. As in the guy who answered the phones. Who greeted patients. Who was their “Director of First Impressions.”

That didn’t work out so well, according to Jones v. VEC (VLW 010-8-151):

* Mr. Jones was discourteous to patients and gave them wrong information.

* He didn’t get along with his boss or the rest of the staff too well, either. He was insubordinate, ignored directions and failed to communicate with his supervisors.

* At least three patients took their business elsewhere because of him.

His supervisor counseled him. Repeatedly. You know where this is headed. They fired him.

He did what a lot of fired employees do: He filed for unemployment compensation. And he got it. Presumably there was some kind of informal hearing, probably over the phone, but the guy was awarded benefits.

Ex-employees who seek unemployment comp generally will get it, unless they were discharged for “misconduct related to the work.” The Supreme Court has set a pretty high bar to snuff out benefits: The behavior, according to a 1978 case, must be a deliberate violation of a company rule, or acts which are “of such a nature and so recurrent as to manifest a willful disregard” of the employer’s interests and the duties owed by the employee.

The leaders at the clinic probably looked at the piece of paper awarding benefits, then they looked at their presumably thick personnel file on Jones. The boss probably remembered all the conversations and the degree of aggravation. Then they probably thought about the three patients he ran off, the ones that they knew about. It’s doubtful they thought, “Heavens. This isn’t right. That man manifested such a willful disregard for our interests!” No, their thoughts were probably more vernacular, something along the lines of “WTF?”

So the clinic said, in so many words, “Take this claim and shove it.” They appealed to the full employment commission. And they won.

But Mr. Jones took the litigation one step further, appealing to circuit court. His argument, according to Judge Robert P. Doherty: I didn’t mean to do it.

Doherty noted that Jones admitted that a number of incidents cited by the clinic took place. And Jones acknowledged that his boss talked with him. He did not challenge the fact that three patients were lost.

But apparently appearing pro se, he argued that his acts were “accidental mistakes” and that he was not being “deliberate or willful.” Put another way, he was arguing, that’s just the way I am.

Doherty didn’t buy it. The circuit court acts as an appellate court when hearing an unemployment comp case, he noted. The judge said that he therefore was bound to give great deference to any factual findings of the commission.

Jones claimed the commission wrongly gave more weight to the clinic employees’ testimony. But Doherty said the burden of proving that was high. Jones would have to show that no reasonable person would have reached the same conclusion as the commission.

So go back to the person who originally awarded unemployment to Mr. Jones. How reasonable was that?

U.S. News & World Report published a handy list last week: “5 Do’s and Don’ts for College Students Using Social Media.”

While aimed at college kids, this quick and basic primer on tools such as Facebook and Twitter is useful to (A) parents with a kid in college who may not get it yet, (B) law students or new graduates who may not get it yet or (C) younger associates at law firms who somehow got that far without getting it yet.

If you fall into category (A), feel free to send the link to this post to your kid. If you fall into category (B) or (C), you better keep reading.

The U.S. News piece said as many as 79 percent of recruiters look to the Internet for info on applicants. They want a sense of who a job applicant is…what’s she like beyond the strong resume she filed. Job applicants all too often are unaware that they’re being watched by potential employers. That young woman with the stellar resume may have posted Facebook pictures of herself chugging beer at a frat house. Given the generally crummy hiring scene (for new law graduates, it’s as bad as it’s been in a generation), it’s a buyer’s market.

You can look at the full U.S. News article here. But this is the quick version of their list:
1. Do create positive content
2. Don’t post questionable photos of yourself anywhere on the Internet
3. Do Google yourself
4. Don’t post negative status updates or tweets
5. Don’t make your online presence all about you

Most of all, be careful how you present yourself. A tip of the cap to our colleague Dave Rhea, the multimedia editor at Oklahoma City’s Journal Record, for first flagging and blogging about the U.S. News item. Rhea notes in his post that employers are all over the Internet, looking for scoop on prospects.

Drunken snaps from that debauched Spring Break trip to Florida may become, sadly, what he calls an FIL (a Future Income Limiter). So are neck and hand tattoos, Rhea says, but those are topics for another day.