concluded that Scott could not be disqualified from receiving unemployment compensation based on her alleged violation of BRA’s rules (as distinct, conceptually at least, from her disregard of the expected stand 41 A.3d 464, 477 (D.C.2012) (recognizing that "excessive absences, where justified by illness or family emergency and properly reported to the employer, are not willful misconduct”) (internal quotation marks omitted). 28 . See footnote 20 and accompanying text, supra. 29 . See Bowman-Cook v. Wash. Metro. Area Transit Auth., 16 A.3d 130, 135 (D.C.2011) ("Without making a finding as to th[e] critical question [of the employee’s notice], the ALJ had no basis for determining that” the employee intentionally violated the employer's requirement.); see also Badawi, 21 A.3d at 612 (<HOLDING>). 30 . See, e.g., Badawi, 21 A.3d at 614 ("[I]n
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 holding that employees failure to comply with employers rule requiring employees to notify employer when a temporary job placement ended did not constitute gross misconduct because the violation was an isolated incident and employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious  or indeed any consequences as a result of employees unavailability holding that the question of whether an employee was acting within the course and scope of his employment or while performing duties related to the conduct of the employers business for purposes of insurance coverage were questions of fact that precluded summary judgment particularly since there was a question regarding the employees intent in performing the act in question holding that it is well established that whether an employees actions were within the scope of employment is a question of fact and even if some of the actions were unauthorized the question of whether the actions were within the scope of employment is for the jury holding that employees conviction for possession of a controlled substance constituted gross misconduct