Noreen Nee began working for the New Life Mission (New Life) in August 2000 as a behavioral specialist. She worked with students who had behavioral and emotional problems, transported them to and from school, and spent time with them oneon one. Nee, an attorney, had some background in special education but had not worked as a counselor before starting this position. Nee attended mandatory training and received her certification as a counselor. New Life did not provide a manual, a handbook, or additional training.

Nee had an admitted problem with establishing and maintaining professional "boundaries." At one point, she drove a client to her house to make him lunch because he had not yet eaten; she approached a client's parent in public to discuss being removed from his case; and she allowed her husband to transport her and her client to a sledding trip.
Although New Life provided no ethics training, it did inform her, after the fact, that her conduct violated their rules. After receiving the instruction, she did not engage in the prohibited conduct.
At some point during the fall of 2000, Nee was taking the prescription pain medication Oxycontin for pain due to an eye condition. Nee apparently discussed this medication with a client's parent, and the parent alleged that Nee attempted to purchase some Oxycontin from him. The parent was concerned that Nee was taking the medication while driving with his child and reported the situation to New Life. Based on this report, New Life's own suspicions regarding Nee's sobriety at work, and concern for the safety of the children in Nee's care, New Life required a note from Nee's doctor detailing the medications she was currently taking. Nee produced the note, but it did not mention Oxycontin. Nee claims this was because she was no longer taking the medication. New Life requested an additional note documenting the time period Nee used Oxycontin. Despite requests from Nee, the doctor never supplied the note.
On March 4, 2001, New Life terminated Nee's employment for misconduct, specifically for her problems relating to professional boundaries and her failure to satisfy its request for documentation relating to Oxycontin. Nee applied for unemployment benefits, and the employer objected to payment of benefits, contending that she was terminated for misconduct. Under state law, misconduct is defined as "a culpable breach of the employee's duties or obligations to the employer or a pattern of irresponsible behavior, which in either case manifests a disregard for a material interest of the employer." Did the employer New Life Mission meet the burden of proof establishing that Nee was discharged for misconduct connected to her work? Was Nee entitled to unemployment compensation benefits? Decide. [New Life Mission v. Maine Unemployment Insurance Commission, 2002 WL31546088 (Me. Super.)]