Opinion
No. 258 C.D. 2014
09-16-2014
First Judicial District of Pennsylvania, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE FRIEDMAN
The First Judicial District of Pennsylvania (Employer) petitions for review of the January 23, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirming the decision of a referee to grant Angela Zirpoli (Claimant) unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. The UCBR determined that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected with his work." 43 P.S. §802(e).
Claimant worked for Employer as a tipstaff and court crier from March 6, 2006, through August 6, 2013. On August 5, 2013, Claimant was called into Judge Paula Patrick's courtroom and instructed to operate video equipment. Claimant was unable to load a video and, despite three calls to her supervisor, she was unable to obtain assistance. (Findings of Fact, Nos. 1-3.)
The UCBR adopted and incorporated the referee's findings of fact and conclusions of law. (UCBR's Order at 1.)
Thereafter, Judge Patrick told Claimant to fix the video equipment. Claimant replied, "I have tried to call my office 3 times. I don't know what you want me to do." Judge Patrick called a recess, and Claimant went to the Judge's chambers to apologize for not being able to operate the video equipment. When Claimant entered Judge Patrick's chambers, the Judge told her to leave. Claimant was startled and did not leave until Judge Patrick told her to leave two more times. (Id., Nos. 4-7.)
On August 6, 2013, Employer discharged Claimant for insubordination in violation of Employer's policy based on her statements in open court and her failure to leave Judge Patrick's chambers when directed. Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits, which the local service center denied. Claimant appealed to the referee, who held an evidentiary hearing on October 17, 2013. The referee reversed the denial of UC benefits, concluding that neither of Claimant's actions constituted willful misconduct under section 402(e) of the Law.
Employer appealed to the UCBR, which affirmed. Employer now petitions this court for review of that decision.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704.
On appeal, Employer argues that Claimant's failure to immediately leave Judge Patrick's chambers when told to do so violated Employer's policy and was an act of insubordination constituting willful misconduct. We disagree.
Under Employer's policy, "Insubordination" is an enumerated example of punishable behavior. (Employer Policy No. 4.5.)
"Willful misconduct" is defined as: (1) a wanton and willful disregard of the employer's interests; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of the standards of behavior that an employer rightfully can expect from its employees; or (4) negligence that manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or the employee's duties and obligations. Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432, 438 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc). An employee's noncompliance with an employer's reasonable, non-written directive may constitute willful misconduct. Graham v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 840 A.2d 1054, 1057 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
When an employee is discharged for violating a work policy, the employer must prove the existence of the policy and the claimant's violation of the policy. Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The burden then shifts to the employee to prove that she had good cause for her action. Id. The employee establishes good cause by showing that her conduct was "justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances." Anderson Equipment Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 994 A.2d 1192, 1195 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Here, Employer has a policy that requires employees to "respect the rights and feelings of co-workers, supervisors, as well as the people the District serves." (Employer Policy No. 4.4.) The referee determined that Claimant's initial noncompliance with Judge Patrick's directive was "a substantiation of insubordination in that the [C]laimant did not follow a specific order when directed." (Referee's Decision at 1.)
The burden then shifted to Claimant to prove that she had good cause for not following Employer's directive. Claimant went into Judge Patrick's chambers to apologize for her inability to operate the video equipment. Claimant testified that when Judge Patrick told her to leave, she "just stood there like a stunned deer because I was shocked at the way she was speaking to me and I was upset." (N.T. at 14.) Although Claimant did not leave Judge Patrick's chambers until told to do so for the third time, the three directives occurred within a short time-period. (Referee's Decision at 1.) Therefore, we agree with the UCBR that, under the totality of the circumstances, Claimant demonstrated good cause for the delay in her compliance.
Although Claimant worked for Employer since 2006, she had not worked with Judge Patrick before the day of the incident. (N.T. at 3; O.R., Item No. 4, Ex. 9.) --------
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge Judge McCullough did not participate in the decision of this case.
Judge Covey did not participate in the decision of this case.
Judge Brobson concurs in result only.
ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of September, 2014, we hereby affirm the January 23, 2013, order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review.
/s/_________
ROCHELLE S. FRIEDMAN, Senior Judge