## Facts

- Nelly L. Amador worked as a histotechnician at a county hospital; her duties involved preparing tissue samples for microscopic analysis.
- Physicians repeatedly instructed her to perform “grosscutting,” selecting and removing tissue from larger specimens for diagnostic review.
- Amador refused to grosscut tissue from live patients, believing she lacked adequate training and that improper sampling could jeopardize patient health.
- She sought outside professional guidance; three independent pathologists advised that grosscutting should be done by a pathologist or specially trained person.
- The hospital suspended Amador for two days for refusing the orders; a civil-service commission upheld the suspension as insubordination.
- The hospital later terminated her for incompetence and insubordination.
- Amador applied for unemployment insurance benefits; the agency denied benefits on the ground she was discharged for “misconduct” under Unemployment Insurance Code § 1256.
- An administrative law judge and the Unemployment Insurance Appeals Board affirmed the denial; the superior court denied mandamus relief.

## Issues

1. Whether an employee is disqualified for unemployment benefits as having been discharged for “misconduct” under Unemployment Insurance Code § 1256 when she willfully refuses an order she reasonably and in good faith believes would jeopardize others’ health.

## Decision

- The California Supreme Court reversed the superior court and held Amador was not disqualified from receiving unemployment benefits.
- The court concluded that a good-faith, objectively reasonable refusal to perform work believed to endanger others does not constitute “misconduct” under § 1256.
- The matter was remanded with directions to grant a writ requiring the Appeals Board to set aside its decision and proceed consistently with the opinion.

## Legal Principles

- “Misconduct” for unemployment disqualification requires willful or wanton disregard of the employer’s interests, such as deliberate violations of standards the employer has a right to expect, or negligence so severe or recurrent as to show equivalent culpability.
- Good-faith errors in judgment, even if intentional noncompliance with an order results, do not amount to “misconduct” within § 1256.
- An employee need not obey every order to avoid a misconduct finding; refusal may be non-disqualifying when based on a sincere, reasonable belief that compliance would threaten the health or safety of others.
- Objective support for the employee’s safety belief—such as relevant training, experience, and independent professional advice—supports treating the refusal as a non-disqualifying good-faith judgment rather than misconduct.
- Interpreting § 1256 to penalize reasonable safety-based refusals would conflict with the statutory purpose of providing benefits to persons unemployed through no fault of their own.

## Conclusion

The court held that unemployment benefits may not be denied as “misconduct” when an employee, acting in good faith and on reasonable grounds, refuses to perform assigned work she believes would jeopardize others’ health, even if the refusal violates an employer directive.


Amador v. Unemployment Ins. Appeals Bd., 35 Cal. 3d 671, 677 P.2d 224 (Cal. 1984)