C.A. Diamond v. UCBR
1507 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 17, 2017Background
- Catherine A. Diamond (Claimant) worked as a front‑desk receptionist from July 2013 until her termination on April 25, 2016; her sister was the office manager.
- Employer investigated shortages between payment logs and bank/credit deposits and concluded cash payments were being logged as credit and cash was missing.
- Accountant identified multiple deposit discrepancies over several days; Employer could not definitively identify whether Claimant or her sister took the money.
- Employer also found torn appointment/payment logs and deleted patient files on the office computer the day Claimant was discharged; Employer engaged computer forensics.
- Employer cited theft and habitual tardiness as grounds for discharge; Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) found Employer’s witnesses more credible and denied unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct).
- Claimant appealed, arguing the Board capriciously disregarded evidence (including a text message), that findings lack substantial evidence, and that her conduct did not constitute willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did the Board capriciously disregard material evidence? | Diamond: Board ignored a text showing Owner "was not accusing anyone," her denial of theft, and lack of prior tardiness warnings. | Board/Employer: Factfinder weighed evidence, found text out of context and gave it little weight; credibility favored Employer. | No — Board did not capriciously disregard evidence; credibility/weight determinations are for the factfinder. |
| Is there substantial evidence supporting finding that Claimant logged payments as credit and took cash? | Diamond: Discrepancies could be system glitches or other explanations; she denied stealing. | Employer: Owner and Accountant testimony plus unexplained discrepancies support finding. | Yes — substantial circumstantial evidence supports the finding. |
| Is there substantial evidence that Claimant erased files and destroyed logs? | Diamond: Tearing may have been accidental; computer never had patient files. | Employer: Multiple witnesses observed torn logs and deletion; forensics consulted; deletion not attributable to glitch. | Yes — substantial evidence supports finding of intentional deletion and destruction. |
| Do theft and habitual tardiness constitute willful misconduct barring benefits? | Diamond: She disputes the facts (no theft, no warning). | Employer: Theft (even circumstantial) and habitual lateness fit definitions of willful misconduct. | Yes — Court held the Board properly concluded Claimant’s conduct amounted to willful misconduct under § 402(e), denying benefits. |
Key Cases Cited
- Jackson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 933 A.2d 155 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (definition/test for capricious disregard of evidence)
- Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder and may resolve credibility conflicts)
- Edelman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 310 A.2d 707 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1973) (Board need not accept uncontroverted testimony)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions of willful misconduct)
- Ford v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 504 A.2d 427 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (employer may rely on circumstantial evidence to prove theft)
- Rohde v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 28 A.3d 237 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (substantial evidence standard)
- Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review v. Vereen, 370 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (theft can constitute willful misconduct)
- Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review v. Glenn, 350 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (habitual tardiness supports willful misconduct finding)