Judge rules security guard, fired for seeing ghosts must get benefits

[CodeComplete]

Taken from CNNews:

Judge rules security guard, fired for seeing ghosts must get benefits

DES MOINES, Iowa (AP) - A judge ruled that a former security guard who was fired for seeing ghosts cannot be denied unemployment benefits.

According to a court ruling released this week, the former guard's allegation of apparitions does not constitute misconduct.

The issue started on Sept. 11, when Wade Gallegos alerted his supervisor at Neighborhood Patrol of Urbandale that ghosts were haunting a neighborhood he was guarding.

The supervisor arrived at the scene, where Gallegos showed him where the ghosts were still apparently standing.

The supervisor claimed he saw nothing and fired Gallegos five hours later.

The company found no signs of drug use or alcohol.

Neighborhood Patrol challenged Gallegos' application for unemployment benefits, arguing he was guilty of misconduct.

"Such beliefs do render the claimant unfit to act as a security guard," Judge G. Ken Renegar ruled. "The employer cannot have security guards who see ghosts and apparitions and inform the employer, and then the employer sends out the patrol cars."

However, the judge ruled, seeing ghosts is not the type of misconduct that can disqualify Gallegos from receiving benefits.

If seeing ghosts and apparations means you can't be a security guard may be other types of employment should be included...

 

[TragicMonkey]

At least the wrangle was only about whether he was qualified for unemployment benefits. Suppose he had sued over wrongful dismissal! Who would like security guards who see ghosts? "I thought I saw a werewolf, so I shot a few dozen rounds into the bushes." Next thing you know, it'd be discrimination not to humor people's hallucinations. And just because Jimmy Stewart saw a giant rabbit is no reason we can't have every confidence in him as a Supreme Court justice.

 

[jj]

Would it not be arguable that he should be elligible for disability?

 

[BPSCG]

Would it not be arguable that he should be elligible for disability?

My first thought - disability, not unemployment. For unemployment, you have to be ready, willing, and able to work, unless I'm very much mistaken. He is clearly not able to work as a security guard if his perception of reality is so impaired. If his impairment is so severe he can't do any other kind of work, either, he could qualify for Social Security disability.

 

[Checkmite]

I see nothing wrong with the ruling in this case considering the facts we're given.

 

[hgc]

I see nothing wrong with the ruling in this case considering the facts we're given.

Act I, Scene 1. Bernardo and Francisco, old-timey Danish security guards, see a ghost. The rest is ... tragedy!

 

[Meadmaker]

My first thought - disability, not unemployment. For unemployment, you have to be ready, willing, and able to work, unless I'm very much mistaken. He is clearly not able to work as a security guard if his perception of reality is so impaired. If his impairment is so severe he can't do any other kind of work, either, he could qualify for Social Security disability.

It's my understanding that a person fired for incompetence is usually eligible for unemployment compensation. The theory is that the person is just as "able" to work as the day he was hired.

In other words, if I persuade my new employer that I would be a competent gardener, and I tell no lies as part of that persuasion, but it turns out that I don't know a pansy from a pachyderm, then I am still being terminated because my value as an employee is less than my cost as an employee. It's not that I am unable to work as a gardener, it's just that no one wants me as one, so my boss loses money. In other words, he is really firing me for economic reasons, not because of non-performance of duties.

If it were not that way, then when an employer could only afford one employee, but he currently had two, he could dismiss the lower performing one, and say he was being fired for incompetence, and get out of paying unemployment.

 

[Dancing David]

My first thought - disability, not unemployment. For unemployment, you have to be ready, willing, and able to work, unless I'm very much mistaken. He is clearly not able to work as a security guard if his perception of reality is so impaired. If his impairment is so severe he can't do any other kind of work, either, he could qualify for Social Security disability.

Well, at least in Illinois all the law states is that you have worked the required amount of time and that you were not misconducting.

Many empolyees are not ready, able, and willing, yet they draw unemployment when they are dismissed.(Even if they don't have schizophrenia or brain damage.)

 

[mgidm86]

Sounds like the right decision. The guy could work for TAPS (Ghost Hunters) I suppose.