Dianne Mathews

was a manager for B and K Foods, Inc., when she was terminated.

She filed for

unemployment compensation but B and K objected. At an employment commission hearing, the

chief executive of B and K testified that it was company policy to pay employees who worked

through their lunch breaks. To be paid, a person turned in a no lunch sheet. Mathews, however,

turned in no lunch sheets when she ran personal errands. Mathews admitted knowing the policy

and occasionally abusing it. She claimed that a former manager had told her it was okay. The

unemployment commission disqualified her receipt of benefits. She appealed

.

A state intermediate appellate court

affirmed. Work-related misconduct must involve a willful

violation of the rules or standards of the employer. Mathews was familiar with B and Ks policy and

violated it. The court also noted that Mathews was responsible for subordinateDianne Mathews

was a manager for B and K Foods, Inc., when she was terminated.

She filed for

unemployment compensation but B and K objected. At an employment commission hearing, the

chief executive of B and K testified that it was company policy to pay employees who worked

through their lunch breaks. To be paid, a person turned in a no lunch sheet. Mathews, however,

turned in no lunch sheets when she ran personal errands. Mathews admitted knowing the policy

and occasionally abusing it. She claimed that a former manager had told her it was okay. The

unemployment commission disqualified her receipt of benefits. She appealed

.

A state intermediate appellate court

affirmed. Work-related misconduct must involve a willful

violation of the rules or standards of the employer. Mathews was familiar with B and Ks policy and

violated it. The court also noted that Mathews was responsible for subordinate

Suppose that Mathews had not admitted to knowing about the no lunch sheet policy. Would the result in this case have been different? Why or why no