Can I Get Unemployment After Being Fired for Violating Company Policy

My question involves unemployment benefits for the state of: California.

I was recently terminated 2-8-2013 for violating company policy. I work for Wells Fargo Bank, and I also have a checking account with Wells Fargo. On 12-7-2012 I pulled up my account on my own computer (using the same program we utilize to help customers). In a quest to obtain more information about the charge, I accidentally submitted a claim dispute on the charge I was investigating. As a result, the claims department credited my account for $9.99 3 days later. Since it came from my computer I was visited by the corporate investigator 2 months later. I told them it was unintentional, I notified my department lead on the following work day. He suggested I should escalate the matter (I failed to do so). After speaking with the investigator, she was adamant that I did this purposely to get an extra 9.99 in my checking account. In the employee handbook (which I signed) it states that were not to process transactions on our own accounts. I was working for the company for 2.5 years and I have never been written up for violating such a rule. After speaking with the investigator I was placed on paid leave for 3 days after which I was subsequently fired. I filed an Unemployment claim and I'm scheduled to get an interview with the unemployment office next week. My question is what are my chances of getting approved for unemployment? I wasn't given any prior warnings, I did notify someone in management the next work day. Thank you in advance for reading my questions. It would be great to get some opinions on this.

Sorry, but I can see this one going either way. If you want my personal opinion of the odds, I'd say 60-40 against. I'd say 50-50 except that you did knowingly violate a policy of accessing your own account, regardless of whether your claim dispute was accidental or deliberate.

Thank you Cbg for your prompt response. I kinda figured I would get denied. However I thought that since I wasn't given any prior write ups for breaking such a rule I that I would have a slight chance of being approved. The strange thing is there's been employee's who were perpetually tardy who were written up and eventually fired, they all ended up getting their benefits, (1 of those after appealing the initial decision).

It's because you never got a prior write up that I'm giving you 40% odds of prevailing. However, there is a difference between being tardy, and deliberately/knowingly violating a policy.

There's six elements to a rules violation.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Miscondu...tm#GeneralRule

The rule is reasonable.

The claimant knew or should have known the rule.

The violation is wilful and wanton.

NOTE: Violation of a reasonable employer rule is not wilful if the claimant has shown good cause for violating the rule.


The violation is material.

The violation substantially injures or tends to injure the employer's interests.

The employer has warned or reprimanded the claimant for previous violations of the same or similar employer rules.

I think you can easily overcome the last three, and possibly even be cleared of any violation at all.

If you read the Wells Fargo policy it probably says that you aren't to conduct transactions on your own account. You can probably make a case that you made no such transaction. The $9.99 posting was done by the disputes department, not by you. You can argue that they did an investigation, and they were responsible for the transaction. Also, look at the web banking screen, could you have submitted the identical dispute there.

Read this case here http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opinio...%2008-0130.PDF for a really good analysis on how the case will be viewed should you have to proceed through the appeal process. It will also point out the things you want to stress so they are on the record.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

There's six elements to a rules violation.

http://www.edd.ca.gov/uibdg/Miscondu...tm#GeneralRule

The rule is reasonable.

The claimant knew or should have known the rule.

The violation is wilful and wanton.

NOTE: Violation of a reasonable employer rule is not wilful if the claimant has shown good cause for violating the rule.


The violation is material.

The violation substantially injures or tends to injure the employer's interests.

The employer has warned or reprimanded the claimant for previous violations of the same or similar employer rules.

I think you can easily overcome the last three, and possibly even be cleared of any violation at all.

If you read the Wells Fargo policy it probably says that you aren't to conduct transactions on your own account. You can probably make a case that you made no such transaction. The $9.99 posting was done by the disputes department, not by you. You can argue that they did an investigation, and they were responsible for the transaction. Also, look at the web banking screen, could you have submitted the identical dispute there.

Read this case here http://azcourts.gov/Portals/0/Opinio...%2008-0130.PDF for a really good analysis on how the case will be viewed should you have to proceed through the appeal process. It will also point out the things you want to stress so they are on the record.

---

Thank you very kindly for responding. The case you linked is very similar to mine in many respects. He was terminated for violating the same rule that I did. Would you mind giving me some tips as how to answer these questions. EDD sent me a list of questions the interviewer will be asking.

1)The reason you left your job at Wells Fargo?

2) Why are you no longer working at your very last job?

3) Were you warned that your actions could result in being fired?

4. When were you warned?

5) If you were fired for breaking an employer rule what employer rule was broken?

6) Were you aware of this rule; how did you break the rule?

7) Why did you break this rule?

The only questions I'm not sure how to answer is 6 and 7. I mean I do, but not in a such a self incriminating manner. If you could give tips on any of the other questions I would be delighted to read your opinion or suggestions. Thanks again.

Don't get duped by the questionnaire. You have no duty to incriminate yourself. The employer carries the burden in a discharge case.

Answers:

1. Discharged

2. Discharged

3. I was aware that I could be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and always tried to do the best job I could.

4. Never.

5. Don't know.

6. Don't know.

7. Don't know.

Now, you may have already provided information, so you can't go with the above, but hopefully you get the idea, don't talk too much or say anything where you end up disqualifying yourself. What you don't want to have happen is for some long, drawn-out investigation to occur if the employer fails to respond or is so brief in their narrative that you'd end up getting benefits.

Once the reason for your discharge has been provided by your employer, you'll have plenty of time to come up with a defense, but since you don't know what the employer is going to say, any details you provide now can deprive you of an early win.

Quote:

---

Quoting chyvan

---

Don't get duped by the questionnaire. You have no duty to incriminate yourself. The employer carries the burden in a discharge case.

Answers:

1. Discharged

2. Discharged

3. I was aware that I could be terminated at any time for any reason or no reason at all, and always tried to do the best job I could.

4. Never.

5. Don't know.

6. Don't know.

7. Don't know.

Now, you may have already provided information, so you can't go with the above, but hopefully you get the idea, don't talk too much or say anything where you end up disqualifying yourself. What you don't want to have happen is for some long, drawn-out investigation to occur if the employer fails to respond or is so brief in their narrative that you'd end up getting benefits.

Once the reason for your discharge has been provided by your employer, you'll have plenty of time to come up with a defense, but since you don't know what the employer is going to say, any details you provide now can deprive you of an early win.

---

Chyvan, thanks again for taking the time to answer my questions. You've been a big help. You previously mentioned that I have "no duty to incriminate myself". That's why I'm a little confused on how to answer questions 5,6,7. So your suggestion would be to respond "I don't know"? Is that going to piss off the interviewer or no? (6) "were you aware of this rule, how did you break this rule". So again, I just respond " I don't know". Will they consider those answers evasive? I know my employer is going to tell them that I signed the employee handbook (even-though I never read it, it's over 300 pages long). So would it still be in my best interests to answer "I don't know" for 5, 6, 7?

It's because you don't know what the employer is going to say or if they are going to say anything. You can't worry about the deputy.

I've helped two claimants in CA that walked out of their jobs with serverance checks. They thought they'd been laid off because what employer gives a severance check when they fire someone. They each applied for UI saying they were "laid off." The employers' versions were very different. While each claimant got UI benefits, they were also assessed 5 week "false statement" penalties because they marked "laid off" vs the employers' "discharged." It's because of this, you can never be sure of anything. On appeal, the "false statement" penalties were waived but that takes an extra step, and the worry that comes with it.

My friend was told that his contract wouldn't be renewed. When he applied for UI, he spilled his guts about his tardiness problem, and the employer responded with nothing. He was disqualified not by the employer's version, but by his own words.

If you don't feel comfortable with "I don't know." Then try, "you're going to have to ask the employer for the details." You need the employer to lock in a story and then you'll be able to rebut/defend against it.

And what's your suggestion for when the response to, "You're going to have ask the employer for the details" is, "Right now I'm asking you".