E. Bingham v. UCBR
E. Bingham v. UCBR - 1245 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Mar 8, 2017Background
- Claimant Elizabeth Bingham worked as a full‑time customer care associate for TMS Health from September 2013 until discharge on or about January 5, 2016.
- Employer had written internet and telephone-use policies (personal internet use prohibited while working; employees may use breakroom computers during breaks) and emailed notice of the policy to employees.
- Employer investigated and produced records showing Claimant made personal internet searches/orders on Employer equipment on January 3, 2016; Employer also produced audio evidence and testimony that Claimant failed to accept customer calls beginning December 21, 2015.
- At the referee hearing Claimant (pro se) testified and admitted visiting Amazon in mid‑December but did not call or subpoena her operations manager to testify; a flash drive of calls was present at the hearing but Claimant did not request it be played.
- The referee initially found Claimant not disqualified; the Board reviewed the record on Employer’s appeal, credited Employer’s testimony and evidence, and reversed, concluding Claimant committed willful misconduct under Section 402(e) by (1) using the internet for personal purchases while working and (2) refusing to accept customer calls.
Issues
| Issue | Bingham's Argument | TMS Health's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board erred by considering evidence/witness testimony Claimant did not hear at the Board level | Bingham: A witness who could explain internet use did not testify; she wasn’t given evidence the Board considered (flash drive recordings) | Employer: All evidence was presented at the referee hearing; Board only reviewed the existing record on appeal | Held: No error — Claimant was present when evidence was received at the referee hearing, did not subpoena or request continuance, and failed to preserve objections about the flash drive |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Claimant violated Employer’s internet policy (personal purchases on work computer) | Bingham: She did not make purchases on January 3, 2016 and had permission earlier in December | Employer: Records and testimony show personal internet searches/orders on January 3; policy notice was provided and breakroom alternatives existed | Held: Substantial evidence supports Employer; Claimant knew the rule, violated it, and gave no good cause; constitutes willful misconduct |
| Whether substantial evidence supports finding Claimant refused/abandoned customer calls | Bingham: She had a longstanding headset/phone problem and sought IT help for 18 months; she did other tasks when phone issues occurred | Employer: IT confirmed calls were reaching her line but she did not respond; Supervisor testified and preserved recordings showing missed/abandoned calls | Held: Substantial evidence supports Board’s credibility determination that Claimant chose not to accept calls; no good cause shown; supports willful misconduct |
Key Cases Cited
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer must prove rule, reasonableness, employee knowledge and violation)
- Yost v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 1158 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (claimant must preserve issues before referee; good‑cause standard for rule violations)
- Vann v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 494 A.2d 1081 (Pa. 1985) (pro se litigants assume some risk from lack of legal expertise)
- Dep’t of Corr. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (definition of willful misconduct)
- Downey v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 913 A.2d 351 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (willful misconduct is a question of law subject to review)
- Johns v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (upholding denial of UC for violation of work rule)