Great Valley Publishing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
136 A.3d 532
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant was a full-time account executive for Great Valley Publishing from Nov. 2012 to May 30, 2014, earning $30,000 plus commission; she was discharged for personal use of employer computers/internet.
- Employer had a written policy prohibiting personal computer/internet use without permission and described it as "zero tolerance," but witnesses admitted enforcement was inconsistent and tolerated unless use was excessive.
- Supervisor observed Claimant on Amazon around 3:00 p.m. on May 30 and redirected her to work; Claimant later used the internet for roughly ten minutes after 5:00 p.m. and was then discharged.
- A referee found Claimant violated the policy and affirmed denial of unemployment benefits under Section 402(e) for willful misconduct.
- The Board of Review reversed, finding Employer tolerated routine personal use, Claimant’s usage was minimal and not excessive, and no prior written warning was given; the Board awarded benefits.
- Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, holding Employer failed to prove Claimant’s conduct rose to willful misconduct given the employer’s inconsistent enforcement and tolerance of informal practice.
Issues
| Issue | Petitioner (Employer) Argument | Respondent (Claimant/Board) Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s personal internet use without permission constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Claimant’s access violated a clear work rule and was egregious; Pettyjohn controls and supports denial of benefits | Employer tolerated informal, non-excessive personal use; Claimant’s brief post-5:00 p.m. use was minimal and not warned against | Court held no willful misconduct: Employer’s inconsistent enforcement meant Claimant reasonably believed limited use permissible |
| Whether employer satisfied burden to prove a reasonable work rule and its violation | Employer: had a written policy and Claimant signed handbook | Board/Claimant: policy was not uniformly enforced; no definition of "excessive" and no warnings given | Court: Employer failed to meet its burden because of admitted tolerance of violations |
| Whether facts are analogous to Pettyjohn (which found willful misconduct) | Employer: Pettyjohn is factually similar and dispositive | Claimant/Board: Pettyjohn differs—there the rule was repeatedly communicated and enforced; here employer tolerated violations | Court: Distinguished Pettyjohn; different enforcement history meant Pettyjohn not controlling |
| Whether precedent permits denial of benefits when employer informally tolerates violations | Employer: argues right to discharge supports denial of benefits | Claimant/Board: prior cases (e.g., Penn Photomounts) permit benefits where employer tolerates informal practice | Court: Followed Penn Photomounts; tolerance defeats willful misconduct finding |
Key Cases Cited
- Pettyjohn v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 863 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (affirmed willful misconduct where rule was repeatedly communicated and enforced)
- Penn Photomounts, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 417 A.2d 1311 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (employer tolerance of informal practices can preclude willful misconduct)
- Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 351 A.2d 631 (Pa.) (scope of denying benefits vs. employer’s discharge right)
- Blouse v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 350 A.2d 220 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (claimant not ineligible where conduct followed practices commonly accepted by employer)