D. Battle v. UCBR
624 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 24, 2016Background
- Claimant Dominique Battle worked as a cashier for P&R Discounts from September 17, 2014 to January 3, 2016 and had prior disciplinary issues.
- On January 3, 2016 manager Kelvin Torres directed Battle to return to her duties; she refused and Torres suspended her.
- Approximately 20 minutes after the suspension, Battle argued with Torres and told him he was "being a little bitch."
- Torres discharged Battle for arguing with and using profane language toward him.
- The local service center denied unemployment compensation under 43 P.S. § 802(e); a referee and then the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) credited Torres’s testimony, found willful misconduct, and affirmed the denial.
- Commonwealth Court, reviewing for substantial-evidence and legal error, affirmed the UCBR’s decision.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the factual finding that Battle refused to return to work and was suspended is supported | Battle contends she was discharged immediately and disputes suspension/refusal finding | Employer (and referee/UCBR) contends Torres suspended Battle after she refused to resume duties; testimony supports finding | Court: UCBR as factfinder credited Torres; findings supported by substantial evidence; no error |
| Whether Battle’s conduct constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Battle argues her conduct did not rise to willful misconduct | Employer argues abusive, vulgar language to a supervisor is insubordination and can be willful misconduct | Court: Battle’s unprovoked profane remark was abusive and not de minimis; constitutes willful misconduct; benefits properly denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Allen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 638 A.2d 448 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (UCBR is ultimate factfinder and assesses witness credibility)
- Bailey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 597 A.2d 241 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (elements and employer burden to prove willful misconduct)
- Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (abusive or offensive language to a supervisor can constitute willful misconduct even without a specific rule)
- Cundiff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 489 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (assess parlance and context to determine whether language is abusive, vulgar, or offensive; willful misconduct unless provoked or de minimis)
- Viglino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 450 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (a single unprovoked instance of vulgarity toward a supervisor can support willful misconduct)