D. Lathan v. UCBR
229 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 7, 2016Background
- Claimant Doug Lathan, a Jo-Ann store manager, was discharged effective May 21, 2015 for repeated failures to follow store policies (daily store tours, bank deposits, floor plans, signage) after written warnings and an Audit Action Plan.
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits; the Service Center initially found him eligible, Employer appealed, and a Referee hearing was scheduled for September 2, 2015.
- Claimant did not attend the September 2 hearing; Employer presented testimony and documentary evidence, and the Referee found Claimant's misconduct was willful and denied benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e).
- Claimant appealed to the Board, claiming he did not receive the hearing notice in time; the Board remanded for Claimant to explain his nonappearance and to present merits evidence if his excuse constituted proper cause.
- At the remand hearing Claimant testified the notice was handled by his small children and was found behind a cabinet after the hearing date; the Board concluded this negligence did not constitute proper cause, declined to consider his remand testimony on the merits, and adopted the Referee’s prior findings.
- Claimant appealed to this Court, which reviewed whether the Board properly declined to credit Claimant’s excuse and whether Employer’s evidence nevertheless established willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Lathan's Argument | Board/Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s failure to receive/locate hearing notice constituted proper cause for missing referee hearing | Notice was not discovered timely due to young children handling mail and the notice ending up behind a cabinet | Failure to discover a properly delivered notice is claimant negligence, not proper cause; therefore remand testimony should be excluded | Board correctly found claimant’s conduct negligent and not proper cause; remand testimony excluded |
| Whether Employer proved willful misconduct to deny benefits under Section 402(e) | Denies willful misconduct; would have rebutted Employer evidence if remand testimony considered | Employer showed repeated warnings, counseling, and specific policy violations by claimant | Even without claimant’s remand testimony, Employer’s evidence is substantial to support willful misconduct denial |
Key Cases Cited
- Volk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 28 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (failure to receive/timely receive hearing notice can be proper cause)
- Eat’N Park Hospitality Group, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 970 A.2d 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (party negligence is not good cause for missing hearing)
- Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 747 A.2d 436 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (failure to explain missed notice reflects negligence, not good cause)
- Savage v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 491 A.2d 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (claimant negligence in reading/handling notice is sole cause of nonappearance)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions/elements of willful misconduct)
- Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer must prove existence of rule and employee violated it)
- McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 112 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause once employer meets its burden)
- Orend v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 821 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (willful misconduct is a question of law reviewed de novo)