DOC v. UCBR, DOC v. UCBR

Claimant (Frank Taylor) was a Department of Corrections community corrections center monitor employed from March 2012 to December 23, 2015; he signed the Department’s Code of Ethics which limited force to the minimum necessary for self-defense, defense of others, to prevent escape, or to quell disturbances.
On December 22, 2015 Claimant and a resident (Mr. Johnson) had an altercation captured on video (no audio); Claimant pushed the resident to the floor after the resident allegedly made threats, including threats to kill Claimant’s children and moved toward Claimant.
Claimant was suspended pending investigation, applied for unemployment compensation (UC), and was initially found ineligible under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct); a Referee reversed and awarded benefits, finding Claimant’s use of force justified.
The Board of Review affirmed the Referee; the Department appealed to this Court contesting (1) whether mere verbal threats can justify violating the use-of-force policy and (2) whether the Referee’s findings about the threats were based on uncorroborated hearsay.
The Court reviewed whether the Department proved willful misconduct (employer bears burden to prove rule, its reasonableness, and violation; burden then shifts to employee to show good cause). The Court affirmed the Board, finding Claimant’s testimony credible and his response justified under the Code.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Department)	Defendant's Argument (Claimant / Board)	Held
Whether verbal threats alone can justify violating the Department’s Use of Force Policy	Use of even minimal force in response to mere words is never justified; policy permits force only for defense, preventing escape, or stopping disturbances, not in response to speech	Threats to kill Claimant’s children and a physical move toward Claimant created a reasonable belief of imminent danger, making limited force justified	The Court held verbal threats (coupled with a threatening move and credible testimony of danger to children) can justify minimal force; Claimant had good cause to violate the rule
Whether the Referee’s findings about the content of threats are unsupported hearsay	Claimant’s recounting of what the resident said is uncorroborated hearsay and insufficient to support findings	Claimant had personal knowledge of the threatening statements; his testimony explained his state of mind and conduct (non-hearsay)	The Court held Claimant’s testimony was not hearsay (personal observation offered to explain conduct) and could support the findings; corroboration was not required here

Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 A.3d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (willful misconduct includes deliberate violation of employer rules)
Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (substantial evidence standard on factual findings)
Graham v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 840 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (credibility determinations for Referee/Board not reweighed on review)
Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 351 A.2d 631 (Pa.) (good cause exists when employee’s actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances)
Penflex, Inc. v. Bryson, 485 A.2d 359 (Pa.) (Board findings upheld if supported by substantial evidence)
Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (hearsay admitted without objection may have probative effect but findings based solely on hearsay will not stand)
Commonwealth v. Hashem, 525 A.2d 744 (Pa.) (out-of-court statements offered to explain conduct or state of mind are non-hearsay)