Aversa v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
52 A.3d 565
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Joseph Aversa was denied unemployment benefits based on a finding of willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e) after an email to coworker Jim Mowery was deemed threatening.
- Employer, U.S. Food Services, maintained a workplace violence policy covering threats, intimidation, and harassing conduct, and Claimant had signed an acknowledgement of the Associate Handbook.
- Claimant sent an email attaching a history of an account with Mowery, stating, “Hey Jim, you set me up pretty good … I WON’T FORGET IT,” which Employer treated as threatening.
- Employer discharged Claimant after a meeting, and the UC Service Center denied benefits, followed by an appeal to a referee and then the Board.
- The referee found the email was intentional and deliberate to threaten Mowery; the Board adopted these findings and affirmed the denial of benefits.
- The Pennsylvania Superior Court reversed the Board, holding the email did not convey an intentional threat and thus did not prove willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Claimant’s email constitute willful misconduct? | Aversa did not intend a threat; words not meant to intimidate or violate policy. | The email, with capitalized emphasis, conveyed a threatening intention and violated the policy. | No; email did not convey an intentional threat; willful misconduct reversed. |
| Can capitalization and context transform neutral language into a threat? | Context and intent show no threat; capitalization does not inherently create threat. | Capitalization coupled with content supports a threat interpretation | No; capitalized words alone do not convert a neutral statement into a threat. |
Key Cases Cited
- Altemus v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 681 A.2d 866 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1996) (defines willful misconduct factors)
- PMA Reinsurance Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 126 Pa.Cmwlth. 94 (1989) (willful misconduct question is a matter of law)
- Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 814 A.2d 1286 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct; rule-based analysis)
- Bishop Carroll High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1989) (existence and knowledge of rules required; weighing reasonableness)
- BK Foods, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 547 A.2d 873 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1988) (balance of rule existence and knowing violation)
- Gillins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 633 A.2d 1150 (Pa. 1993) (rationale on when rule violation may be unreasonable or justified)
- Bush v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 409 A.2d 524 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1980) (context of language used in evaluating threat)
- Yi v. State Board of Veterinary Medicine, 960 A.2d 864 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008) (credibility determinations are not substantive evidence of intent)
- Rossi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 676 A.2d 194 (Pa. 1996) (standard for Board’s findings and substantial evidence)
- Wright, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Wright, 347 A.2d 328 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1975) (Board as ultimate fact-finder; credibility assessment)
- Beddis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 6 A.3d 1053 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (binding Board findings when supported by substantial evidence)