Background
Carol Greenhouse worked as an innkeeper for Sleepy Hollow Inn Ski and Bike LLC from June 2022 until her termination in January 2025. While her direct supervisor, Eli Enman, provided her with “overwhelmingly positive feedback,” the inn’s owner Sandra Enman identified multiple performance concerns including flower maintenance, cleaning quality, and front-desk presence. Notably, Greenhouse never received written performance evaluations, formal warnings, or notice that her performance could result in termination.
Greenhouse was discharged following two events: taking personal vacation in January (the inn’s busiest season) after notifying and obtaining arrangement coverage from Eli Enman, and declining to provide past hours-worked data in connection with a Department of Labor request made to the employer. Greenhouse appealed the denial of unemployment benefits, and the Employment Security Board ruled she was eligible. The employer appealed to the Vermont Supreme Court.
The Court’s Holding
The Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the Board’s decision, holding that Greenhouse’s discharge did not constitute employment-related misconduct disqualifying her from benefits. Under Vermont law, misconduct requires “substantial disregard of the employer’s interest, either willful or culpably negligent,” and the employer bears the burden of proof.
The court found the Board properly considered the absence of warnings and written policies, though such warnings are not strictly necessary to prove misconduct. The court determined Greenhouse’s actions amounted to “mere mistakes, errors in judgment, [and] unintentional carelessness”—a lower bar than misconduct. Greenhouse took vacation with at least tacit approval from her supervisor; had no leave policy to violate; provided a reasonable explanation for not supplying unemployment data; and violated no clear employer directive. The court emphasized that Greenhouse received conflicting messages from multiple owners and lacked clear expectations about her performance.
Key Takeaways
- An employer claiming misconduct bears the burden of proof; the court presumes unemployment board findings reasonable absent clear contrary evidence.
- While prior warnings are not required to establish misconduct, their absence is a relevant factor in determining whether an employee’s actions constituted willful or intentional disregard for the employer’s interests.
- Poor performance, mistakes, and errors in judgment do not constitute disqualifying misconduct absent evidence of willful or culpably negligent disregard for employer interests.
- Ambiguous employer expectations and lack of clear documented policies weigh against finding disqualifying misconduct.
Why It Matters
This decision clarifies Vermont’s unemployment compensation framework and reinforces that employers challenging benefit eligibility bear a substantial burden. While the case involves modest facts—vacation timing and data requests—the opinion establishes important guardrails: employers cannot simply characterize underperformance as misconduct without evidence of willful or negligent disregard, and the absence of clear policies and warnings is significant to that analysis. The decision protects employees from disqualification for good-faith errors while allowing employers to maintain discipline through documented standards and clear warnings.
The case also illustrates the distinction between operational inconvenience and legal misconduct. An employer facing staffing gaps during peak seasons has legitimate business interests, but resolving staffing challenges through termination without clear prior warning does not automatically constitute valid grounds for denying unemployment benefits. The ruling balances these interests by requiring employers to establish clear expectations and follow documented procedures.