Opinion
No. 826 C.D. 2012
02-26-2013
Shelly Laibhen, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY PRESIDENT JUDGE PELLEGRINI
Shelly Laibhen (Claimant) petitions pro se for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) finding her ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because her termination from the Wells Fargo Bank (Employer) was due to willful misconduct. Finding no error in the Board's decision, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(e). That section provides in pertinent part:
An employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week -
...
(e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is "employment" as defined in this act.
Willful misconduct has been defined as:
(a) wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; (b) deliberate violation of an employer's rules; (c) disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or (d) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations.
Claimant was employed as a manager by Employer for approximately four and a half years and was terminated for violating Employer's policy against lending money to other employees. Claimant filed a claim for unemployment compensation benefits, which the Unemployment Compensation Service Center denied, finding that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct, and Claimant appealed.
Before the Referee, Claimant testified that she worked for Employer from March 26, 2007, through November 10, 2011, until she was terminated for lending money to a subordinate. Claimant said that her subordinate approached her at work about borrowing $500 to repay a debt to another person and she immediately wrote a check for that amount. While she admitted that she was aware of Employer's policy against lending money between employees, she felt that she was justified in doing so because the subordinate was her friend, and she had been friends with the subordinate prior to her becoming an employee; she noted that Employer was aware of her relationship with the individual when the individual was hired.
Azad Rad (Rad), Employer's district manager, testified that he was notified by the corporate investigations team that a customer entered the branch where Claimant worked and said one of Claimant's employees owed the customer money. He said that because of the situation, the investigations team interviewed Claimant, at which time she "admitted to lending one of her subordinates money to make good on the money that was owed to this particular customer." (Hearing transcript dated January 19, 2012, at 4.) Rad said he then consulted with the human resources advisor's team, which said the loan was a clear violation of Employer's code of ethics, and Claimant was aware of this rule. He further testified that he was aware of Claimant's preexisting friendship with the individual.
Based on the testimony and evidence submitted at the hearing, including Employer's relevant policy, the Referee affirmed the denial of benefits, finding that Employer had a policy that prohibited the lending money between employees, of which Claimant was aware, but nonetheless "lent money to a subordinate employee because the employee was her friend," which was not adequate justification for violating Employer's policy. (Referee's Decision and Order dated January 19, 2012, at 1.) Based on these findings, the Referee determined that Claimant was terminated for willful misconduct. Claimant appealed to the Board, which affirmed the decision of the Referee's denial of benefits, and this appeal followed.
Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, an error of law was committed or findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. Myers, 533 Pa. at 376, 625 A.2d at 624. Whether the actions of an employee constitute willful misconduct is a question of law. Temple University v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 565 Pa. 178, 182 n.1, 772 A.2d 416, 418 n.1 (2001).
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in finding that she committed willful misconduct because she had good cause to violate the policy, as the personal loan was to a friend in need, to whom she had loaned money before an employment relationship existed for purposes not related to her employment.
The deliberate violation of an employer's rules or policies is generally considered willful misconduct. Arbster v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 690 A.2d 805, 808 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). The employer must establish the existence of a reasonable work rule and that the employee violated the rule. Id.at 808-09. "If the employer proves the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule, and the fact of its violation, the burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove that she had good cause for her actions. The employee establishes good cause where her actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances." Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 608 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011).
There is no dispute that Employer has a policy that employees may not loan money to or borrow money from another employee. Claimant was aware of the policy; therefore, the only issue is whether she had just cause to violate the policy. While Claimant believed that she was lending money to her subordinate as a friend in need, the subordinate was still a subordinate and co-worker, to which the policy applied. Her friendship with the subordinate, no matter how much she was in need, does not constitute good cause to violate Employer policy. See Azzari v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 521 A.2d 539, 541-42 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (holding that family financial difficulties did not justify failure to follow policy requiring employees who had defaulted on student loans taken out with the employer, a college, to establish repayment plans). Because the Board properly found that Claimant had not established good cause to violate Employer's policy against lending money between employees, the Board's order is affirmed.
Even in the absence of such a specific policy, we have said that a supervisor soliciting a loan from subordinates violated the standards of behavior an employer may expect of an employee because "[t]here is unspoken, and implicit, coercion when a boss makes a request for a significant loan of an employee under his supervision." Weingard v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 26 A.3d 571, 577 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). --------
Accordingly, we affirm the decision of the Board.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of February, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, dated April 3, 2012, is affirmed.
/s/_________
DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge
Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 573 Pa. 594, 600, 827 A.2d 422, 425 (2003). However, "an employer cannot demonstrate willful misconduct by merely showing that an employee committed a negligent act, but instead must present evidence indicating that the conduct was of an intentional and deliberate nature." Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 533 Pa. 373, 378, 625 A.2d 622, 625 (1993) (internal citation omitted).