Adams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
56 A.3d 76
Pa. Commw. Ct.2012Background
- Claimant was employed by Adelphoi Education from Sept. 28, 2005, to Aug. 19, 2011.
- Employer had a code of conduct requiring notification of arrests or convictions while employed.
- Claimant was arrested around Aug. 15, 2011, and did not inform Employer.
- Claimant appeared before a magistrate, was fingerprinted, and entered an Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program.
- Employer suspended Claimant after revealing the docket; the UCBR concluded these events equated to an arrest under the policy.
- The court reversed the UCBR, holding Claimant was not arrested and thus did not violate the work rule; Claimant was not disqualified for unemployment benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s conduct constitutes willful misconduct for failing to report an arrest | Claimant argues he was not arrested and thus did not violate the rule | Employer contends appearing before magistrate and ARD constitute an arrest under the policy | No arrest occurred; rule not violated; reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Commonwealth v. Duncan, 514 Pa. 395 (1987) (definition of arrest for evidentiary purposes (plurality))
- Commonwealth v. Perez, 845 A.2d 779 (2004) (overruled in part; definition context cited)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (willful misconduct elements; burden on employer)
- Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa.Cmwlth.2011) (burden-shifting framework for work-rule violations)