Doyle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
58 A.3d 1288
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant Doyle was terminated from his Facility Manager position on Sept. 9, 2011 for alleged willful misconduct related to a Performance Improvement Plan (PIP).
- Employer presented a PIP on Aug. 3, 2011 requiring 12 guidelines and four HR webinar retakes within 30 days; Doyle refused to sign and did not complete webinars.
- Doyle was discharged after failing to comply with the PIP; the Referee found willful misconduct under §402(e).
- Claimant argued he did not sign the plan and thus was not bound, but the Referee rejected this assertion.
- Board affirmed the Referee’s findings; Doyle appealed to this Court, challenging the evidentiary basis and ultimate willful misconduct finding.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there willful misconduct proven as the reason for dismissal? | Doyle argues lack of willful misconduct since he did not sign the plan. | Employer argues failure to complete the webinars and noncompliance with the PIP shows willful misconduct. | Yes; substantial evidence supports willful misconduct. |
| Was Saylor’s testimony competent to establish the reason for discharge? | Saylor’s testimony about the rationale was hearsay and not personally aware. | Saylor testified he attended the termination meeting and stated the reason was noncompliance with the PIP; he was involved in the process. | Competent evidence; Saylor’s involvement supports the reason for discharge. |
| Does absence of Doyle’s signature negate enforcement of the PIP? | Unclear binding effect due to lack of signature. | Non-signature did not defeat plan compliance since Doyle admitted noncompliance and steps toward compliance were insufficient. | Non-signature did not preclude finding of willful misconduct. |
| Did Doyle’s attempted partial compliance negate willful misconduct? | Doyle claimed some plan requirements were met. | Failure to complete any of the four webinars supports willful misconduct. | No; failure to complete all requirements constitutes willful misconduct. |
| Was the Board’s credibility determination properly upheld? | Challenged Board credibility on witnesses. | Board is sole factfinder and credibility determinations are to be respected if supported by evidence. | Yes; Board’s credibility determinations affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Yost v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 1158 (Pa.Cmwlth.2012) (competent evidence from closely involved supervisor allowed despite ultimate decision-maker status)
- McCarthy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (Board may accept or reject witness testimony in whole or in part)
- PrimePay, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 962 A.2d 684 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (willful misconduct requires actual cause for separation)
- Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (employer must show awareness of work rule and deliberate noncompliance)
- Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 833 A.2d 1181 (Pa.Cmwlth.2003) (standard for review of Board’s findings; willful misconduct framework)