Doyle v. NAI Pers., Inc., 991 A.2d 1181, 1185 (D.C.2010) (“[T]he ALJ may consider the lesser included issue of whether petitioner's conduct amounted to simple misconduct justifying the more limited denial of benefits under § 51-110(b)(2). But die finding of gross misconduct may not stand.”) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). 31 . Doyle, 991 A.2d at 1184 (internal alterations and quotation marks omitted). 32 .See Odeniran, 985 A.2d at 429 (reasoning that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because it "did not present evidence that [the employee’s] willful [violation] was other than an isolated incident, nor did it contend that its business had suffered serious consequences as a result”); see also Doyle, 991 A.2d at 1184 (<HOLDING>) (quoting Odeniran, 985 A.2d at 429). 33 . See,
holding that when an employer intentionally engages in misconduct knowing it is substantially certain to cause serious injury or death to employees and an employee is injured or killed by that misconduct the employee may pursue a civil action against his employer and also pursue benefits under the workers compensation act holding that the employer had not demonstrated the employee was discharged for gross misconduct because the conduct was an isolated incident and the employer did not try to show that its staffing ability had suffered serious  or indeed any consequences as a result of the employees conduct holding in a case in which the alj found the employer had failed to establish a rule violation under 7 dcmr  3127 but nevertheless determined the employer had established the employees gross misconduct that because there was scant evidence as to the employers written requirements pertaining to employee behavior this court could not conclude that there was substantial evidence that the employee had violated the employers rules in a manner that amounts to gross misconduct under 7 dcmr  3123 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 because the employee had engaged in similar religious conduct on prior occasions employer had notice of the conflict