Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Law Commons

Open Access. Powered by Scholars. Published by Universities.®

Labor and Employment Law

University of Michigan Law School

Michigan Law Review

1959

Communism

Articles 1 - 2 of 2

Full-Text Articles in Law

Unemploymenet Compensation - Disqualification - Employee's Refusal To Discuss Alleged Communist Party Membership With His Employer Constitutes Misconduct Connected With His Work, Joel N. Simon S.Ed. Nov 1959

Unemploymenet Compensation - Disqualification - Employee's Refusal To Discuss Alleged Communist Party Membership With His Employer Constitutes Misconduct Connected With His Work, Joel N. Simon S.Ed.

Michigan Law Review

Claimant was discharged after he refused to explain or deny charges of Communist Party membership, made against him before a congressional committee, at a hearing conducted by his employer, a private contractor engaged in defense work. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review rejected his claim for unemployment compensation benefits upon a finding that this refusal constituted "willful misconduct connected with his work." On appeal, held, affirmed. An employee's refusal to discuss alleged Communist Party membership with his employer, who is engaged in defense work, creates doubt as to his loyalty and jeopardizes his employer's defense contracts. His consequent discharge …


Constitutional Law - Due Process - Dismissal Of State Employees For Refusal To Answer Questions Concerning Membership In Communist Organizations, Roger W. Findley Jan 1959

Constitutional Law - Due Process - Dismissal Of State Employees For Refusal To Answer Questions Concerning Membership In Communist Organizations, Roger W. Findley

Michigan Law Review

In companion cases state employees of Pennsylvania and New York were dismissed on grounds of "incompetency" and "doubtful trust and reliability" for refusing to answer questions by superiors concerning membership in communist organizations. Petitioner Beilan also invoked the Fifth Amendment at a hearing by a congressional investigating committee between the time he refused to answer his superior and the time he was dismissed. Appellant Lerner had invoked the Fifth Amendment when he refused to answer the questions asked by city officials. The highest courts of the states upheld the dismissals, making it clear that they were based on refusal to …