“we are aware of no published decision from this court holding that an employee was fired for gross misconduct for engaging in acts remotely comparable” to those here. Even if Scott’s failure to come in for an interview within five days constituted deliberate non-cooperation, her conduct was far more similar to behavior we have held insufficient to satisfy the exacting standard for gross misconduct. IV. For the foregoing reasons, we reverse the decision of the OAH that petitioner is disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation benefits because she was discharged by her employer for gross misconduct. We remand the case for further findings, as described in this opinion, bearing on whether petitioner was discharged for simple misconduct because she dis 5 A.2d at 422-23, 430 (<HOLDING>); Amegashie v. CCA of Tenn., 957 A.2d 584, 586,
holding that employees conscious decision to spend the day on the internet instead of doing his job despite being chided more than once constituted simple not gross misconduct holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct holding that aljs failure to make findings on an issue relevant to employees state of mind and the deliberateness or willfulness of his actions was a critical omission because employees state of mind was a critical factor in resolving the ultimate legal question of whether his conduct as a matter of law amounted to simple or gross misconduct recognizing that the court sanctions more harshly for cumulative misconduct than for isolated misconduct holding that an employees purposeful violation of established safety rules despite instruction and warning constituted willful misconduct