The rule or policy must be reasonable in light of an employer's interest-i.e., there must be a clear relationship between the rule or policy and the employer's stake in it, and it must be one that could be expected to be adhered to in the normal course of events. A rule that conflicts with or violates any legal right of the employee is per se unreasonable. SRH § 1310(A).  The reasonableness of a rule must be evaluated in light of a claimant's protection under the Americans with Disabilities Act, SRH § 1324(C), and other state and federal laws protecting workplace rights. 

The application of the rule must also be reasonable-i.e., a rule would not be reasonably applied where there are circumstances of an "unusual nature." SRH § 1320. Examples of such circumstances include the following:

• serious weather‑related problems.
• unavoidable transportation problems.
• adherence to supervisory rules that are contradictory.
• family emergencies, such as illness, that may lead to a violation of absence or tardiness rules. To the extent that extensive absences are covered by the Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993, 29 U.S.C. §§ 2601 et seq. (FMLA), or the Massachusetts Maternity Leave Act, G.L. c. 149, § 105D, they are generally not disqualifying for UI purposes. SRH § 1322.
• rules that regulate an employee's conduct outside the workplace.
• adherence to rules that could result in injury to the health or safety of an individual.
• compliance with rules that would violate federal or state law, public policy or ethical or professional standards.
• inability to comply with the rule due to circumstances resulting from domestic violence. SRH §§ 1305(B), 1322(B) and 1338.
• any other objectively verifiable circumstances that are of an unusual or urgent and compelling nature with which the claimant could not reasonably be expected to comply.