Ramsey v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review

Full title: Andrea M. Ramsey, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review…

Court: COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Date published: Feb 22, 2013

No. 1513 C.D. 2012 (Pa. Cmmw. Ct. Feb. 22, 2013)

Opinion

No. 1513 C.D. 2012

02-22-2013

Andrea M. Ramsey, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COVEY

Andrea M. Ramsey (Claimant), pro se, petitions this Court for review of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's (UCBR) July 18, 2012 order affirming the Referee's decision denying Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).¹ The only issue before the Court is whether Claimant is ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law for willful misconduct.² We affirm.

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).

2 Claimant also refers to being "cut off by the ref when answering a question" in her "Statement of Questions Involved[,]" however, this issue is not raised in the brief's argument section. Claimant's Br. at 7. This issue is, therefore, waived pursuant to Rule 2119(a) of the Pennsylvania Rules of Appellate Procedure.

Claimant was employed as a full-time Data Entry Specialist with Horizon House Inc. (Employer) earning $14.06 per hour. Claimant began employment July 23, 2007, and was last employed on March 7, 2012. Employer has a policy which prohibits insubordination, classifying it as a serious violation of agency policy and procedure. Conduct which meets the criteria of a serious violation is cause for disciplinary action up to and including immediate employment termination, depending upon the circumstances. Claimant was, or should have been aware of Employer's policy. On February 28, 2012, Claimant received a written warning regarding inappropriate interaction with her supervisor, Derrick Norton (Norton), Employer's Information Management Specialist, and instructing Claimant not to question his authority. On March 7, 2012, Claimant again was insubordinate towards her supervisor which resulted in Claimant's discharge.

Claimant subsequently applied for UC benefits. On April 5, 2012, the Philadelphia UC Service Center (UC Service Center) determined that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed and, on May 8, 2012, a Referee held a hearing. On May 9, 2012, the Referee mailed his decision affirming the UC Service Center's determination. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. The UCBR affirmed the Referee's decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.³

3 This Court's review is limited to determining whether the findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether errors of law were committed. Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 869 A.2d 1095 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005).

Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in finding her ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.⁴ We disagree.

4 Claimant's brief inadvertently refers to Section 402(b) of the Law. --------

Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when his unemployment is due to discharge from work for willful misconduct connected to his work. The employer bears the burden of proving willful misconduct in an unemployment compensation case. Willful misconduct has been defined as (1) an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer's

interest; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer's rules; (3) a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or a disregard of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.

Dep't of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744, 747 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citation omitted). "In the case of a work rule violation, the employer must establish the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule and its violation." Lindsay v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 789 A.2d 385, 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001).

Here, Quanda Stewart (Stewart), Employer's Director of HIRS and Compliance, testified before the Referee that Employer had a policy against insubordination, the violation of which results in immediate discharge. Stewart further reported that Claimant was given a handbook containing said policy when she was hired. She was also given a copy of the policy on February 2, 2012, attached to the memo she received regarding her inappropriate conduct toward Norton. See Original Record (O.R.) Item 2 at 11. Stewart also stated that Claimant had received a written warning on February 28, 2012, regarding her challenging Norton's instructions, wherein, she was specifically warned not to question Norton's authority. See O.R. Item 2 at 9.

Norton testified before the Referee as follows:

On March 7^th, [Claimant] knocked on my door and understanding that she had a half day for that day, asked me if I wanted to take the work that she had already completed. I took the work from her. And upon taking it from her, I asked her if she was going to pick up the docs at the 12:30 pickup. She said that it wasn't her responsibility to do so because Cindy was there. And I alerted her that Cindy had the day off and that she would have to pick up the docs. She said that it is not her job and she left the area. Coming back at the time (sic), she told me, I don't know

who you think you are and that I don't have any authority when I asked her once again about the docs.

O.R. Item 8 at 16 (emphasis added). Claimant left for the day without picking up the docs.

[I]t is well settled that the [UCBR] is the ultimate finder of fact in unemployment compensation proceedings. Thus, issues of credibility are for the [UCBR] which may either accept or reject a witness' testimony whether or not it is corroborated by other evidence of record. Findings of fact are conclusive upon review provided that the record, taken as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the findings.

Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citations omitted). The UCBR specifically found "the testimony of [Employer's] witnesses to be credible." O.R. Item 11.

"Substantial evidence has been defined as such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." City of Pittsburgh, Dep't of Pub. Safety v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 927 A.2d 675, 676 n.1 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (quotation marks omitted). Clearly, the record contains relevant evidence adequate to support the conclusions that Employer had a policy against insubordination, Claimant was aware of said policy, and Claimant violated the policy. Accordingly, the UCBR did not err in concluding that Claimant committed willful misconduct.

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR's order is affirmed.

/s/_________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

ORDER

AND NOW, this 22^nd day of February, 2013, the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's July 18, 2012 order is affirmed.

/s/_________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge