C. Dubaskas v. UCBR, C. Dubaskas v. UCBR

Background

Claimant Colleen Dubaskas worked as a personal care assistant for Wyoming Valley West School District from Sept. 2012 until her last day, Nov. 18, 2015.
Claimant received a doctor’s restriction reducing her schedule to three days/week; Employer offered alternative substitute PCA assignments at a lower rate that would accommodate restrictions.
Claimant was told in September 2015 that state-required clearances were due by Dec. 31, 2015; she did not begin the clearance process until Dec. 23, 2015 and experienced delays obtaining one child-abuse clearance.
Employer suspended Claimant for failing to respond to the alternative-offer and later, after Claimant did not timely update clearances or contact Employer, mailed a Feb. 5, 2016 letter demanding immediate contact or termination; Claimant contacted Employer on Feb. 13 and learned she had been terminated (letter dated Feb. 11).
The Department of Labor initially found Claimant eligible for benefits; after Employer appealed, a Referee and then the Board found Claimant engaged in willful misconduct and denied unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e).

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Dubaskas)	Defendant's Argument (Board/Employer)	Held
Whether Claimant’s absence and failure to timely obtain clearances constitute willful misconduct/abandonment	Dubaskas: she reasonably delayed because one clearance takes weeks, had practical difficulties (no home computer), and she called Employer in January about problems	Employer: Claimant had notice in Sept. to obtain clearances by year-end, waited until Dec. 23 to apply, and did not diligently pursue or timely notify Employer of issues	Held: Substantial evidence supports willful misconduct—Claimant failed to diligently obtain clearances and had no good cause for delay
Whether Claimant’s failure to contact Employer after Feb. 5 letter excuses abandonment	Dubaskas: she received the Feb. 5 letter on Feb. 10 after school hours and then called on Feb. 13	Employer: Claimant received the letter and unreasonably waited multiple school days (Feb. 11–12) without calling or leaving a message	Held: Delay in contacting Employer was unjustified and supports finding of abandonment/willful misconduct
Whether Employer met burden to prove willful misconduct	Dubaskas: disputes sufficiency of evidence that she caused separation	Employer: presented evidence of prolonged absence, failure to meet a clear deadline, and failure to respond to direct demand to contact	Held: Employer met initial burden; Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence
Whether Claimant proved good cause to rebut willful misconduct	Dubaskas: proffered logistical difficulties and late attempts to comply	Employer: lack of notice to Employer pre-deadline and failure to timely apply for or complete remaining clearance	Held: Claimant failed to establish good cause; burden shifting to claimant unmet

Key Cases Cited

Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (defines willful misconduct standards)
Schwarzenbach v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 387 A.2d 519 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (absences and failure to contact employer can show abandonment)
Pettey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 325 A.2d 642 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (excessive absences and disregard of warnings may be willful misconduct)
Pedersen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 459 A.2d 869 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (Board is ultimate factfinder; appellate review limited to substantial-evidence standard)
Mulqueen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (burden shifts to claimant to prove good cause)
Procyson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (scope of appellate review explained)