STATEMENT OF FACTS On July 23, 2011, this board established that Unemployment compensation benefits were allowed and

that there was not a willful or intentional misconduct by Ms. Clark. The determination was that Ms. Clark was acting within her duties when she removed the meds from the doctors office as it was a part of her responsibilities. Notice of Determination lines 7-8 Ms. Mary Clark (Ms. Clark) was terminated from her employment with Dr. Fitter (Employer) when she stated, no way was she quitting,[Employer] had to fire her. OESC request for add info pg.1.Ms. Clark expressly stated that she was not quitting in response was to being asked to sign a form admitting wrongdoing. Employer admits they were merely going to counsel Ms. Clark during a meeting. However, instead of counseling Ms. Clark, Employer admits to responding okay to Ms. Clark statement it had to fire her. Employer justifies its act of firing Ms. Clark claiming, she didnt let us counsel her, she blew up and walked out. Employer alleges it wanted to counsel Ms. Clark for seeking a sympathetic ear from a co-worker while in an emotional state of tears and borrowing a cigarette. Employer does not offer any documentation that any such counseling had taken place prior to the meeting with Ms. Clark. Employer attempts to characterize Ms. Clarks conduct as insubordination, gossiping, and lack of trust. Employer hired Ms. Clark to be responsible for ordering and

checking in medications in Employers office. However, on the day in question, Employers office manager, Holly, placed an order of herbal meds on the desk of one of the doctors without checking with Ms. Clark as to why it was ordered. Dr. Fitter had no idea what the sample meds were because he did not know it was being sent. Ms. Clark removed the order of herbal supplements from the doctors office as part of her assigned duties. OESC notice of determination She took them back to the medication room to check the order in and sample it. Employer then informed Ms. Clark that it was inappropriate to remove the meds from the doctors office. Employer never gave Ms. Clark an opportunity to discuss the issue with Dr. Fitter. OESC request for add info pg.1. Ms. Clark believes that Dr. Fitter would have understood the mix up with the office manager failing to check in the meds, had she been given the chance to speak with him. Nevertheless, a meeting was called between Ms. Clark, Holly, Employers HR manager, and Dr. Fitter to confront Ms. Clark about the meds being removed from the doctors office. During the meeting, Employer confronted Ms. Clark about the meds that were removed from the doctors office. Employer stated that Ms. Clark looked puzzled by the assertion and that she stated that the drug rep sent them (samples) to everyone in the office. Employer admits that it did not know if Ms. Clark realized how serious the incident was. Employers assertion of an invasion of privacy by removing the meds to be checked in was upsetting to Ms. Clark. Employer stated that Ms. Clark would be given the opportunity to resign. Employers Internal Memo #3(a) However, Employer did not

give Ms. Clark the opportunity to bring her resignation the next day. Employer admits that if Ms. Clark did not resign, it would fire her. Employers alleged resignation form it handed Ms. Clark to sign was an admission of wrongdoing, rather than a resignation form. Although Employer alleges that the act of Ms. Clark performing one of her assigned duties was a violation the employee handbook provisions, Hearing pg. 2,lines 34, none of these alleged violations are in its original documentation of Ms. Clarks dismissal of May 20, 2011.