In State ex rel. Louisiana-Pacific Corp. v. Indus. Comm. (1995), 72 Ohio St.3d 401, 403, 1995 Ohio 153, 650 N.E.2d 469, the claimant was fired for violating the employer's policy prohibiting three consecutive unexcused absences. The court held that the claimant's discharge was voluntary, stating: We find it difficult to characterize as "involuntary" a termination generated by the claimant's violation of a written work rule or policy that: (1) clearly defined the prohibited conduct; (2) had been previously identified by the employer as a dischargeable offense; (3) was known or should have been known to the employee. Defining such an employment separation as voluntary comports with State ex rel. Ashcraft v. Indus. Comm. (1987), 34 Ohio St.3d 42, 517 N.E.2d 533 and State ex rel. Watts v. Schottenstein Stores Corp. (1993), 68 Ohio St.3d 118, 1993 Ohio 133, 623 N.E.2d 1202--i.e., that an employee must be presumed to intend the consequences of his or her voluntary acts.