Jasper Harris, Jr. v. Virginia Employment Commission et al.
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
COURT OF APPEALS OF VIRGINIA Present: Judges Elder, Clements and Senior Judge Annunziata JASPER HARRIS, JR. v. Record No. 0365-08-2 MEMORANDUM OPINION * PER CURIAM SEPTEMBER 23, 2008 VIRGINIA EMPLOYMENT COMMISSION AND COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, ex rel. VIRGINIA INDUSTRIES FOR THE BLIND FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE CITY OF RICHMOND Margaret P. Spencer, Judge (Jasper Harris, Jr., pro se, on brief). (Robert F. McDonnell, Attorney General; Elizabeth B. Peay, Assistant Attorney General; Thomas W. Nesbitt, Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee Virginia Employment Commission. No brief for appellee Commonwealth of Virginia, ex rel. Virginia Industries for the Blind. Jasper Harris, Jr. appeals a decision of the circuit court affirming the Virginia Employment Commission s (VEC) decision finding that Harris is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits effective June 5, 2005, pursuant to Code § 60.2-618(2), because his employer, Virginia Industries for the Blind, discharged him for misconduct connected with his work. We have reviewed the record, the opinions of the appeals examiner and the VEC, and the circuit court s February 20, 2008 final order, and find that this appeal is without merit. Accordingly, we affirm for the reasons stated in the appeals examiner s opinion, as adopted by the VEC, along with its additional findings, in its opinion, and as affirmed by the circuit court in its final order dismissing Harris s petition for judicial review of the VEC s decision. See Harris * Pursuant to Code § 17.1-413, this opinion is not designated for publication. v. Commonwealth, Commission Decision UI-0510629 (Aug. 18, 2005); Harris v. Commonwealth, Commission Decision 76627-C (June 21, 2006); Harris v. Virginia Employment Comm n, Case No. 706CL060004750-00 (Feb. 20, 2008). We dispense with oral argument and summarily affirm because the facts and legal contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the Court and argument would not aid the decisional process. See Code § 17.1-403; Rule 5A:27. 1 Affirmed. 1 In light of our summary affirmance of the circuit court s decision, we deny the VEC s motion to dismiss. -2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
