Opinion
No. 1252 C.D. 2014
02-11-2015
Lauren Janecki, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS
Lauren Janecki (Claimant), petitions for review of the July 17, 2014 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the decision of the referee denying her unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because she was discharged from her employment for willful misconduct. We affirm the order of the Board.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, § 402(e), as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e). Section 402(e) provides that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week "[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work . . . ." 43 P.S. § 802(e).
Lehigh Valley Health Network (Employer) discharged Claimant from its employ on March 5, 2014 and Claimant filed for unemployment compensation benefits. On March 28, 2014, the Department of Labor and Industry issued a Notice of Determination concluding that Claimant was ineligible to receive unemployment compensation due to her discharge from employment for willful misconduct. (Record (R.) Item 4, Notice of Determination.) Claimant appealed the Notice of Determination and a hearing was held before a referee on May 5, 2014, at which Claimant was represented by counsel. (R. Item 8, Referee's Hearing, Transcript of Testimony (H.T.).) Following the hearing, the referee issued a decision and order that affirmed the Notice of Determination. (R. Item 9, Referee Decision and Order.) Claimant appealed the referee's order to the Board, and the Board affirmed, adopting and incorporating the referee's findings and conclusions. (R. Item 11, Board Decision and Order.)
Two witnesses, without counsel, testified for Employer at the hearing: Employer's Human Resources Consultant and a Radiologist Manager, who was Claimant's direct supervisor.
The findings of fact adopted and incorporated by the Board were as follows:
1. Claimant started working for Lehigh Valley Health Network in December 2001 and was last employed as a full-time diagnostic technician on March 5, 2014.
2. Claimant was scheduled to work 24 hours each weekend, 48 weekends per year, and was paid a premium rate of pay of $35.55 per hour for working the weekend program.
3. On November 9, 2013, Employer issued to Claimant a written warning for multiple incidents of being away from her assigned work area for extended periods of time and allowing her boyfriend access to restricted areas.
4. Employer informed Claimant her boyfriend was not permitted in non-public areas.
5. Employer advised Claimant her job was in jeopardy.
6. Shortly before 4:00 AM on March 3, 2014, Claimant's boyfriend was at the hospital.
7. Claimant accompanied her boyfriend into a restricted access women's locker room knowing he intended to confront one of her coworkers.(R. Item 9, Referee's Decision and Order, Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶1-11.) In addition, the Board noted that while the referee made no finding that Claimant used a swipe card to allow her boyfriend access to the women's locker room, even if the door was open, Claimant admitted it was inappropriate for her boyfriend to be present there. The Board further stated:
8. Claimant knows her boyfriend is short tempered and she does not have the physical ability to control or restrain him when he is angry.
9. Claimant made no effort to contact security.
10. Employer received a complaint from the coworker who reported feeling threatened and harassed during the incident.
11. Employer terminated Claimant's employment for allowing her boyfriend to be in the restricted area.
[Claimant] testified that her boyfriend came to the hospital to drop off house keys and then wanted to speak to [Claimant's] coworker. [Claimant] might not have been able to restrain her boyfriend when he became angry. Nevertheless, [Claimant] was aware of her boyfriend's temper and knew that her job would be in jeopardy if she continued allowing her boyfriend access to restricted areas. She should have, at least, called security when her boyfriend confronted the coworker.(R. Item 11, Board Decision and Order.) Claimant appealed the Board's decision to this Court for review.
In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, and whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; On Line Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 941 A.2d 786, 788 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). Substantial evidence is defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion. Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 A.3d 643, 647 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).
Before this Court, Claimant argues that because she lacked the ability to control her boyfriend, a finding of willful misconduct for violation of a work rule prohibiting employees from allowing access to restricted areas is unwarranted. She asserts that she did not invite him to her workplace, and once he arrived, she pleaded, unsuccessfully, with him to leave the premises. Claimant further argues that no rule required her to call security, an action she asserts might have escalated the situation, and her failure to do so does not amount to willful misconduct.
In unemployment compensation cases, the burden of proving willful misconduct is on the employer. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452, 456 (Pa. 1997); Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). To prove willful misconduct, the employer must show: (1) wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, (2) deliberate violation of the employer's rules, (3) disregard of standards of behavior that an employer can rightfully expect from an employee, or (4) negligence that indicates an intentional disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties or obligations. Temple University v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 772 A.2d 416, 418 (Pa. 2001); Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456.
A claimant's violation of a reasonable work rule or employer policy constitutes willful misconduct unless the application of the rule or policy to the claimant's conduct is unreasonable or the claimant shows good cause for her actions. Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456; Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369-70; Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571-72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). To prove willful misconduct on this basis, the employer must prove the existence of the rule or policy and that the claimant was aware of the rule or policy and violated it. Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369-70; Williams, 926 A.2d at 571; ATM Corp. of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 859, 865-66 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). If the employer makes that showing, the burden is on the claimant to demonstrate good cause for her conduct. Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369; ATM Corp. of America, 892 A.2d at 865. Whether a claimant's actions constitute willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal. Temple University, 772 A.2d at 418 n.1; Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456; Walsh, 943 A.2d at 368.
Here, Claimant was not discharged from her employment for her failure to call hospital security; rather, the Board found that she was discharged from her employment for allowing her boyfriend access to a restricted area, a violation of Employer's directive for which Claimant had previously received a written warning. (R. Item 9, F.F. ¶¶3, 11.) Employer's Human Resources Consultant testified as to the written warning Claimant received previously, which indicated Claimant's boyfriend had been banging on the card access door and was prohibited from being in restricted areas, as well as the report received from the security supervisor, prepared on the day of the incident which precipitated Claimant's discharge from employment. (R. Item 8, H.T. at 5-6, 8.) A written statement prepared by the coworker involved in the incident indicated that as she was walking out of the restricted locker room, Claimant and her boyfriend were walking toward her and Claimant told her to return to the locker room; she indicated that the boyfriend sat in a chair and Claimant stood behind the coworker, positioned between her and the doorway. (R. Item 8, Employer's Exhibit 4.) The statement prepared by the coworker indicated that the boyfriend then questioned her repeatedly as to why she had a problem with Claimant, and became increasingly agitated; she also stated that Claimant then "yelled at her" and that she felt "intimidated and cornered." (Id.)
While the coworker's statement was hearsay, it was not objected to and was corroborated by other evidence of record. Stugart v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 85 A.3d 606, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). --------
The Board found, not that Claimant pleaded unsuccessfully with her boyfriend to leave the premises, but rather that she "accompanied her boyfriend into a restricted access women's locker room knowing he intended to confront one of her coworkers." (Id., F.F. ¶ 7.) Claimant failed to show good cause justification for her actions. The Board is the ultimate fact finder, and its credibility determinations and findings of fact are binding on this Court where they are supported by substantial evidence, even if there is other contrary evidence. Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2 A.3d 667, 671-72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010); Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). The Board's findings here are supported by substantial evidence.
Because the Board did not err in finding that Claimant committed willful misconduct, we affirm the order of the Board.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 11th day of February, 2015, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge