Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
138 A.3d 50
Pa. Commw. Ct.2016Background
- Claimant Shanique E. Fontaine worked as a principal secretary (timekeeper) for Chester Community Charter School from Aug. 2013 to Jan. 23, 2015 and was terminated for altering paraprofessionals’ time cards to show a 29-hour cap.
- Employer’s handbook prohibited falsification of records; employer asserted Claimant received and acknowledged the handbook.
- Employer supervisors met with Claimant Jan. 9, 2015 about timekeeping duties and testified they told her not to alter time cards; Claimant denied being so warned and said she believed adjusting timecards was part of payroll duties.
- Claimant admitted altering and initialing time cards, apologized in an email, and said she would not do so again; Employer suspended, investigated, and then discharged her for falsifying records.
- A referee found the employer’s testimony that Claimant was expressly warned not to alter time cards not credible and credited Claimant’s testimony that she misunderstood the rule; the referee and the Board concluded the conduct was not willful misconduct under §402(e).
- Employer appealed to Commonwealth Court arguing the Board should have shifted the burden to Claimant to prove good cause once Employer proved a known rule and its violation; the Court affirmed the Board.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Employer) | Defendant's Argument (Claimant) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Employer met its burden to prove willful misconduct by showing a reasonable rule, claimant’s knowledge, and deliberate violation | Employer: Employer established the rule, that Claimant knew it, and that she violated it, so burden should shift to Claimant to prove good cause | Claimant: She honestly misunderstood payroll practice; she believed altering timecards was permitted in payroll and was not deliberately falsifying records | Court: Employer failed to prove Claimant intentionally or deliberately violated the rule; burden never shifted to Claimant |
| Whether Claimant’s actions constituted willful misconduct under §402(e) | Employer: Alteration of timecards is falsification and constitutes willful misconduct warranting disqualification | Claimant: Actions were an honest mistake/ misunderstanding, not deliberate wrongdoing | Court: Credible evidence showed confusion and honest mistake, not willful misconduct; benefits allowed |
| Whether the Board erred by relying on claimant’s testimony and not finding good cause lacking | Employer: Board should have required Claimant to prove good cause after establishing the rule and violation | Claimant: Credible testimony negated deliberate violation so no burden shift; good cause need not be reached | Court: Finding of credibility is binding; because Employer didn’t meet initial burden, no need to consider good cause |
| Whether prior-warning cases cited by Employer control | Employer: Cited cases where known rule + violation shifted burden; here same should apply | Claimant: Those cases involved prior warnings or disobedience; here there was credible evidence of confusion | Court: Distinguishes cases (e.g., Heitzcman) where conduct was deliberate disobedience; here record showed confusion and prior instances of similar adjustments, so those cases don’t apply |
Key Cases Cited
- Myers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1993) (supreme court definition of willful misconduct)
- Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 755 A.2d 729 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (employer bears burden to prove reasonable work rule and its violation)
- Tongel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (must show intentional or deliberate violation)
- MacFarlane v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 317 A.2d 324 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974) (willful misconduct requires consciousness of wrongdoing)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (inadvertent or negligent violation may not be willful misconduct)
- Morysville Body Works, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 419 A.2d 238 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (mistake vs. deliberate rule violation distinction)
- Rebel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 723 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1998) (all circumstances considered in willful misconduct analysis)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause only after employer proves deliberate violation)
- Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (employer failed initial burden where claimant credibly showed lack of deliberate violation)
- Heitzcman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 638 A.2d 461 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (contrast: disobedience of direct instruction can be willful misconduct)
- Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 411 A.2d 580 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (honest mistake is not willful misconduct)
- Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 606 A.2d 955 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (referee’s credibility findings are binding on appeal)