The Vermont Supreme Court has affirmed a decision allowing a fired paralegal to collect unemployment benefits, rejecting her former employer's argument that she was terminated for work-related misconduct.
In *Stevens Law Office v. Department of Labor (Kylie Cordner)*, decided in January 2026, the state's highest court upheld the Employment Security Board's determination that Kylie Cordner was entitled to unemployment compensation after being fired from her position as a paralegal at Stevens Law Office.
The case began when Cordner applied for unemployment benefits following her termination. Stevens Law Office contested the application, arguing that Cordner was discharged for misconduct connected with her work and should therefore be disqualified from receiving benefits under Vermont law.
According to court records, Cordner had previously worked for two years at another law firm as a "Litigation Paralegal" before being hired by Stevens Law Office. The law firm decided to employ Cordner for a trial period based on what it perceived as gaps in her paralegal skill set. The parties entered into a contract covering the first 30 days of Cordner's employment.
During the trial period, Stevens Law Office praised Cordner's performance in many areas but ultimately found her legal skills insufficient. The firm discharged her at the end of the 30-day trial period, citing concerns about her capabilities as a paralegal.
When the matter went before the Employment Security Board, a claims adjudicator initially rejected Stevens Law Office's argument that Cordner should be disqualified from benefits. The adjudicator determined that the termination did not constitute misconduct related to work that would disqualify her from unemployment compensation.
A hearing officer subsequently upheld this decision after reviewing the case details. The hearing officer's findings focused on the legal standards for employment misconduct under Vermont unemployment law.
Under Vermont statute 21 V.S.A. § 1344(a)(1)(A), an individual is disqualified from unemployment benefits if the person "has been discharged by the individual's last employing unit for misconduct connected with the individual's work." However, Vermont law sets a high bar for what constitutes disqualifying misconduct.
As the hearing officer explained, citing the precedent *Favreau v. Department of Employment & Training*, an employee must act "in substantial disregard of his employer's interests, either willfully or with culpable negligence" to be disqualified from unemployment compensation benefits.
Stevens Law Office appealed the Employment Security Board's decision to the Vermont Supreme Court, maintaining that Cordner's performance deficiencies constituted work-related misconduct that should disqualify her from benefits.
However, the Vermont Supreme Court affirmed the lower board's decision in a brief entry order. The court found no error in the Employment Security Board's determination that Cordner's termination did not rise to the level of disqualifying misconduct under Vermont law.
The case highlights the distinction between poor job performance and misconduct in the context of unemployment benefits. While employers may terminate workers for inadequate performance, such terminations do not automatically disqualify employees from receiving unemployment compensation unless the conduct meets the legal standard for misconduct.
The Vermont Supreme Court's decision emphasizes that unemployment benefits serve as a safety net for workers who lose their jobs through no fault of their own. The legal framework protects employees from being denied benefits simply because their performance did not meet an employer's expectations, particularly during probationary periods.
For Stevens Law Office, the decision represents a failed challenge to the state's unemployment compensation system. The law firm was unable to demonstrate that Cordner's performance issues constituted the type of willful or negligent behavior that would warrant benefit disqualification.
The ruling also underscores the importance of the trial period arrangement in this case. While Stevens Law Office hired Cordner with the understanding that her skills might need development, the court system ultimately determined that her performance during this probationary period did not constitute misconduct.
This decision may influence how other Vermont employers approach terminations during trial periods and their expectations for challenging unemployment benefit claims. The case demonstrates that performance-based terminations, even during probationary periods, face a high legal bar to be considered disqualifying misconduct.
The Vermont Supreme Court's entry order was issued during the January 2026 term. As noted in the court's filing, decisions by three-justice panels are not considered precedent before any tribunal, limiting the formal precedential value of this particular ruling while still providing guidance on how Vermont courts approach unemployment compensation disputes.