Boynton Cab Company v. Neubeck (1941), 237 Wis. 249, 296 NW 636 is a Wisconsin Supreme Court decision which defined at-will employee misconduct. Parts of it are still cited to this day by unemployment administrative hearing officers reaching their conclusions about the fact laid before them during the first unemployment hearing.
Given that unemployment laws vary by state, you should check your state's Employment Security Act to make sure you know if it has defined misconduct, or have adopted all, or in part the definition resulting from this case not long after unemployment insurance became mandated in 1935.
The the Boynton Cab vs. Neubeck decision makes good sense to me. And it is what I used while I worked to gauge an argument to prove misconduct, or the possibility of a rebuttal that an individual was fired for something other than work related misconduct.
However, an effective appeal argument to rebut guilt of misconduct isn't made by defending actions called misconduct by an employer, but by using that burden to argue why the actions an employer claims to be misconduct, literally do not rise to standard of law required for an employer to meet it's burden, possibly by using just one descriptive word, found in the definition below.
Positioning what you argue to prove, or disprove misconduct is what hearing representative's do prior to an unemployment hearing and what strengthens any valid merits to argue .. is documentation to weight the testimony of direct, or firsthand witnesses in lieu of hearsay witness testimony that may be deserving of an objection to evidence, or testimony, which is also something hearing representatives do for a party to an appeal .. during the first hearing.
Boynton Cab Company v. Neubeck (1941), 237 Wis. 249, 296 NW 636
"The term 'misconduct' as used in (the disqualification provision) is limited to conduct evincing such willful or wanton disregard of an employer's interest as is found in deliberate violations or disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employee, or in carelessness or negligence of such degree or recurrence as to manifest equal culpability, wrongful intent or evil design, or to show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employee's duties and obligations to his employer. On the other hand, mere inefficiency, unsatisfactory conduct, failure in good performance as the result of inability or incapacity, inadvertencies or ordinary negligence in isolated instances or good faith errors in judgment or discretion are not to be deemed 'misconduct' within the meaning of the statute."
Now, check your own state's unemployment laws to see if your state has changed any of the semantics, or might have some unemployment precedents of it's own to help you understand how the powers that be are supposed to interpret misconduct.
Need to Know More About Unemployment and Getting Fired?