of. employee behavior). See 7 DCMR § 312.7 (providing that “[i]f a violation of the employer's rules is the basis for a disqualification from benefits” due to either gross or simple misconduct, then it must be determined that: “(a) [] the existence of the employer’s rule was known to the employee; (b) [] the employer’s rule is reasonable; and (c) [] the employer's rule is consistently enforced by the employer”). 6 . Rodriguez v. Filene's Basement Inc., 905 A.2d 177, 180 (D.C.2006). 7 . Id. at 181 (internal quotation marks omitted). 8 . Morris v. U.S. Envtl. Prot. Agency, 975 A.2d 176, 181 (D.C.2009) (quoting Brown v. Corr. Corp. of Am., 942 A.2d 1122, 1125 (D.C.2008)). 9 . Capitol Entm’t Servs., Inc. v. McCormick, 25 A.3d 19, 22 (D.C.2011); see also D.C.Code § 2d 410, 413 (D.C.2008) (<HOLDING>). 27 . Cf. Hamilton v. Hojeij Branded Food,
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 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 an employee could not establish pretext when the employer in good faith believed that the employee engaged in misconduct regardless whether the employee in fact engaged in the misconduct 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 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