Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
59 A.3d 1159
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant, a full-time Sales Supervisor, worked for Harbor Silver and Gold from July 30, 2007 to July 29, 2011.
- Employer required punctual arrival and mandated callers to explain lateness; excessive tardiness could lead to dismissal.
- Claimant received multiple warnings: at least four face-to-face discussions about tardiness.
- Between June 7 and June 23, 2011, Claimant was late six times, five of which were about 30 minutes late.
- On June 24, 2011, she received a written Performance Discussion Record warning that timely attendance was required.
- On July 29, 2011, after a three-week vacation, Claimant arrived about 45 minutes late and was discharged for habitual tardiness and rule violations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether habitual tardiness after warnings constitutes willful misconduct | Ellis argues the policies are vague and she had good cause. | Harbor argues repeated tardiness and prior warnings show willful misconduct. | Yes; habitual tardiness after warnings supports willful misconduct. |
| Whether the employer need a precise tardiness threshold to prove willful misconduct | Ellis contends no specific threshold is required. | Employer need not have a numeric cap if conduct is habitual and notices were given. | No numeric threshold required; notice and habitual tardiness suffice. |
| Whether good cause existed for being late on July 29, 2011 | Claimant claims medical documents and transportation issues justify lateness. | Board found her explanations not credible and not good cause. | Board credibility finding stands; good cause not established. |
| Whether the Board’s factual determinations are supported by substantial evidence | Claimant challenges credibility and weighing of evidence. | Evidence supported Board’s findings and reasonable inferences. | Substantial evidence supports Board’s findings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 66 Pa.Cmwlth. 492, 446 A.2d 330 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1982) (habitual tardiness supports willful misconduct)
- Nelson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 84 Pa.Cmwlth. 364, 479 A.2d 57 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1984) (warning history justifies discharge for attendance issues)
- Orend v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 821 A.2d 659, (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (Pa.Cmwlth. 2003) (no detailed policy needed if notice and habitual tardiness shown)
- Conibear v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 463 A.2d 1231, 1232 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1983) (prior reprimands show sufficient disregard for employer's interests)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518, 522 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1999) (burden on employer to prove willful misconduct; good cause on claimant to prove otherwise)
- Wideman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 505 A.2d 364, 368 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1986) (Board weighs credibility and existence of good cause)
- Owens v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 748 A.2d 794, 798 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2000) (work-rule violation requires proof of rule and reasonableness of rule)
- Topco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106, 1108-1109 (Pa.Cmwlth. 1994) (Board as fact-finder; substantial evidence standard)