I was denied for Breech of Confidentiality

(Illinois)

I am on a Habitat for Humanity committee as a family selector in our home town (Illinois); I also worked for a non-profit organization company. I attended a meeting for Habitat after work one evening and I was asked the question of the whereabouts of the next participant was – as I told them, I had seen her a couple days prior moving her stuff out of her apartment (which I was her caseworker); I was also asked the question of if there were any sort of damages, I simply stated “yes there were some damage to the apartment”. I also told the person on the board to get a hold of my supervisor with anymore questions. As I went to work that Thursday I was pulled into the office and discharged. We are talking, organization to organization (ex. we talk to public aid offices and health departments about certain circumstances) I don’t see how this is different? They said I did not have written consent to release such info. They are not denying unemployment, but the unemployment office denied me saying I told them I was aware of the company policy rule they have. Where as I told them in the phone interview that I realized there was a company policy of not telling others business outside was a rule, but I did not think anything of the sort meaning it was another organization. So now I need to write up a letter very carefully about how to appeal my case. Any hints on doing so would be helpful! I have one typed up but don’t know if it looks/sounds right. If I could send you the letter, maybe you could give me pointers?

Thanks

Hi,

And yes, they are denying you unemployment for a rule violation for which you told them you were aware of said rule.

You self disqualified, and your goal at the hearing is to convince them that even if you did do what you did that it was an honest mistake and fill them in on the details as to why you didn’t think stating what you did was something that would be prohibited by this rule.

A distinction can be made about something that appears at first glance to be a knowing violation of a rule vs. a one time act of misjudgment that wasn’t intended nor considered to cause harm to the employer or a knowing violation of a rule you were aware of.

If you’d like, use the email on the left to email what you have written so far, but please remember the appeal letter doesn’t really need to lay it all out. It just needs to be sufficient to get a hearing scheduled.

Comments for I was denied for Breech of Confidentiality

Average Rating

Aug 09, 2011
Rating

Christian Minisrty

by: Anonymous

First of all I am shocked that you were being paid to do the work that at most Habitat for Humanity Affiliates is strictly voluntary. Board members and subcommittee members are not paid as would an E.D. or office manager would be.
Most importantly, Habitat for Humanity is recognized by the federal government to be an ecumenical Christian based home building ministry.
Employees of Christian and other religious based and church operated organizations are ineligible for unemployment compensation. If you get yours consider yourself lucky.

Hi Anonymous,

This is an old submission, but if you read carefully, there was no mention of being paid or employed by Habitat for Humanity.

I gathered when rereading that she sat on the selector committee as a volunteer and when asked a question by another committee member about one of the possible recipients of a home, she revealed information she’d obtained during the course of performing her job for a non-profit as a case manager .. and this candidate for a home was one of her cases.

It was the nonprofit employer not Habitat or a church organization (which, by the way, are usually, not considered providers of covered employment) that terminated her employment for revealing that little tidbit about there being damage to an apartment.

My thought, unless she was a habitual blabbermouth always telling tales about her clients to those without any need or right to know .. it would appear to be an isolated and inadvertent instance of misjudgement not rising to those descriptors of misconduct

Willing, Knowing, Intentional.

Although, I believe the employer probably terminated her for fear that harm could come to them if the client ever found out and what was revealed became the primary reason for not getting a habitat .. That was a reasonable reaction by the employer to stave off any civil action by the client, but if an employer reacts with that kind of justified paranoia .. I think there is now an argument to support that all employees should be just as paranoid of their own employers.

No wonder we’re a stressed out country.

Chris

May 01, 2009
Rating

Thank you

by: Anonymous

Thank you very much for the comments. I will take it all in stride and do my best to win the unemployment case. I will keep you informed.

Thanks again so much for your time!