Chartiers Community Mental Health & Retardation Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
134 A.3d 1165
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant (Susan R. Flynn) revised Employer’s vehicle maintenance policy as part of a project to update 84 policies; she emailed proposed changes to supervisors and posted revisions to a public folder but did not have formal approval.
- Employer terminated Claimant for revising a recent policy without authorization and for allegedly misrepresenting facts during a March 3, 2015 meeting about whether others approved the changes.
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits; Department initially found no willful misconduct. Employer appealed to a Referee, who found willful misconduct and disqualified Claimant.
- Claimant’s counsel emailed a Board appeal on May 26, 2015; the Board received the email but said part was unreadable and asked for a resend; Claimant faxed the content on June 12, 2015.
- The Board concluded the May 26 email preserved the filing date, found Claimant credible, reversed the Referee, and awarded benefits; Employer appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Employer) | Defendant's Argument (Claimant/Board) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Timeliness of Board appeal | May 26 email unreadable; only faxed June 12 — appeal untimely | Board recorded receipt May 26 and requested resend; that preserved filing date | Appeal timely; Board confirmation of receipt controls |
| Whether unreadable email preserved substantive issues | Unreadable portion contained issues; unreadable email didn’t preserve issues | Claimant resent content and filed a brief identifying errors; preserved issues | Issues preserved: claimant provided sufficient indication of errors |
| Willful misconduct disqualification under Section 402(e) | Claimant materially misrepresented facts in investigation and improperly changed policy — constitutes willful misconduct | Claimant’s conduct was not dishonest; she sought input and reasonably thought change efficient; no policy implemented without approval | Board’s credibility findings supported — no willful misconduct; benefits allowed |
| Standard of review for Board factual findings | Court should reverse because Employer’s witnesses contradicted Claimant | Board is ultimate factfinder and may credit Claimant over Employer; appellate court must not reweigh evidence | Court affirms Board; will not substitute its credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Mountain Home Beagle Media v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (filing date is date agency acknowledges receipt, not sender’s timestamp)
- Roman-Hutchinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (risk of email malfunction lies with filer; appeal is untimely if not received by deadline)
- McClean v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 908 A.2d 956 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (claimant must verify receipt when filing electronically to preserve appeal period)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder; appellate court cannot reweigh evidence)
- Merida v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 543 A.2d 593 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (to preserve an issue, appellant must indicate what errors occurred and where to focus)