not qualify as a “rule adopted to ensure the orderly work and the safety of employees,” and therefore does not meet the statutory requirements of misconduct. Third, Kaup asserts that Global Securities had to have been aware of his outside employment for months before firing him and, therefore, any failure to disclose was too remote to be considered the misconduct leading to his termination. 1. Unreasonableness claim Failure to comply with an unreasonable company policy is not misconduct. See Edwards v. Tex. Emp’t Comm’n, 936 S.W.2d 462, 468 (Tex.App-Fort Worth 1996, no writ) (citing Lairson, 742 S.W.2d at 101); Lohmuller v. Tex. Workforce Comm’n, No. 14-00-00008-CV, 2000 WL 1862824, at *3 (Tex.App.-Houston [14th Dist.] Dec. 21, 2000, no pet.) (mem. op, not designated for publication) (<HOLDING>); Kaup, as the party seeking to • set aside the
holding that the claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy holding that claimant committed willful misconduct when she did not return to work at the end of her leave and did not comply with her employers notification policy 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 the complaint stated a claim for wrongful discharge in violation of public policy where the employee was discharged for refusing to comply with his employers demand that he continue to operate a commercial vehicle for periods of time that violated federal regulations holding that employers policy which required employee to work without pay in violation of federal law was unreasonable and employees refusal to comply was not misconduct