A.J. DiBella v. UCBR
A.J. DiBella v. UCBR - 1069 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 24, 2017Background
- Angela J. DiBella worked part-time as a cashier/stand manager for Aramark at the Wells Fargo Center from 1994 until suspension on March 11, 2016 and termination effective March 15, 2016.
- Employer had a written cash-handling policy (no under-ringing, no mixing personal funds, progressive discipline up to termination). Claimant acknowledged awareness of the policy.
- Claimant received prior discipline: written warning (Nov. 2015) for an 8.7% cash discrepancy and a written warning plus suspension (Dec. 2015) for mishandling pretzel sales; employer records showed prior counseling.
- On March 9, 2016, a surveillance camera recorded Claimant making unregistered sales, accepting cash without ringing items, and putting cash from her pocket into the register.
- Employer discharged Claimant for theft/cash mishandling. The UC Service Center and a Referee found willful misconduct under §402(e), the Board affirmed, and Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | DiBella's Argument | Aramark's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant committed willful misconduct disqualifying her from UC benefits | She acted according to accepted workplace practice; supervisors acquiesced and Employer failed to produce a supervisor to contradict her claim | Video evidence, prior warnings, and policy documents show deliberate violations of cash-handling rules; progressive discipline justified termination | Claimant’s conduct constituted willful misconduct; Board’s finding affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (defines willful misconduct standards)
- Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 A.3d 643 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (willful misconduct standard and employer burden)
- Temple University v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 772 A.2d 416 (Pa. 2001) (supervisory acquiescence does not excuse disqualifying misconduct)
- Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 A.3d 699 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause after employer proves misconduct)
- ATM Corporation of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 859 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (same burden-shifting principle)