Some people have the accountability and good sense to answer this question themselves, some need help working through a natural propensity to feel guilty about everything and others have no accountability or good sense at all.
There is a truth about unemployment insurance that is directly related to how people approach life. in general and what I write about winning unemployment appeals goes right over their head.
Boynton Cab Company v. Neubeck (1941), 237 Wis. 249, 296 NW 636 is a Wisconsin Supreme Court Decision which still stands today and is cited by unemployment administrative hearing judges (ALJ) in decisions in many states to this day .. including Wisconsin
However, unemployment laws vary, so double check your state's Employment Security Act.
The the Boynton Cab vs. Neubeck decision makes a lot of good sense to me, so I'm sure it will to many of you.
It's been adopted in it's entirety , or in part by many other states and explains what willful misconduct consists of
Succinctly, it's enough to make us aware of and responsible for our own behavior as an at-will employee.
When an employer goes to an unemployment appeal hearing, whether on their own appeal, or yours, they are reasonably expected as the party with the burden of proof for a discharge and to rise to a standard of law to prove at least some portion of the definition below.
In general, they must prove your misconduct at work was willful.
Who knows you might by of realized getting unemployment requires thinking like a lawyer.
I mean, the whole idea here is how you will prevent the employer from sustaining their burden to prove misconduct via a counter quasi-legal argument of why your actions, or inactions in the performance of your job were not of the willful, intentional, or should of known better variety.
An argument to rebut your guilt of misconduct isn't based on defending your actions, That would be an unwise choice based upon your lack of unemployment hearing experience.
Your position at the hearing is to show why your employer's testimony and/or evidence doesn't hit the mark of any point in the definition they are aiming for. .
And yes, some of you will understand when I tell you if your emotions can ruin your chance of winning a winnable unemployment appeal, then the same holds true for some employers .. who are usually your former boss .. because direct, first hand knowledge is important to one of your rights to due process you may need to object to while preventing fulfillment of the burden.
So why were you fired from your job is an important question, but it's not as important as admitting when your employer can prove you were fired for being guilty of work related misconduct.
"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 interpret the word misconduct.
If you need representation, or help preparing for you appeal .. I may be at your service.
More You May Need to Know About Unemployment