H. Santana v. UCBR
424 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Nov 15, 2016Background
- Hector Santana (Claimant) worked as a valve technician and was discharged by North American Machine Works (Employer) after a physical altercation with coworker Raymond Rios on October 30, 2015.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation; the UC Service Center initially found him eligible, concluding he acted in self-defense. Employer appealed.
- At the Referee hearing, Employer presented three witnesses who described Claimant as the aggressor; Claimant testified he acted in self-defense after Rios threatened him and picked up a stick. Testimony conflicted on who initiated force and whether Claimant attempted to retreat.
- The Referee credited Employer’s witnesses, found Claimant initiated and escalated the fight, and concluded his conduct was willful misconduct under Section 402(e), denying benefits. The Board affirmed, making its own findings that Claimant confronted and pushed Rios, later punched him, and thus did not act in justifiable self-defense.
- Claimant also asserted disparate treatment because Rios was not discharged; that argument was raised only after the Board’s decision and was deemed waived. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s use of force was justified self-defense so as to avoid a finding of willful misconduct | Santana: he reasonably feared imminent bodily harm, attempted to de-escalate, and acted in self-defense (retreat not required) | Board/Employer: Claimant confronted Rios, escalated the encounter, had opportunities to withdraw, and his conduct was retaliatory not reflexive | Held: Substantial evidence supports Board’s finding that Claimant escalated and re-engaged, so his force was not reasonable self-defense and constitutes willful misconduct; benefits denied |
| Whether Claimant was disparately treated (i.e., Employer fired Claimant but not similarly situated Rios) | Santana: Employer applied its policy inconsistently; Rios was not discharged for similar conduct | Board: Issue was not raised before the Referee/Board (waived); alternatively, Claimant didn’t prove elements of disparate-treatment defense | Held: Disparate-treatment claim waived for failure to raise below; on the merits Claimant also failed to show he was similarly situated or that discharge was for improper criteria |
Key Cases Cited
- Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 83 A.3d 484 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (self-defense can justify use of reasonable force; analysis of retreat and reflexive reaction)
- Rivera v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 526 A.2d 1253 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (fighting is willful misconduct; escalation where retreat was possible may defeat self-defense)
- Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definitions of willful misconduct)
- Mathis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (standard of review—Board findings supported if substantial evidence exists)
- Sun Oil Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 408 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (reasonable belief of imminent bodily harm can justify reasonable retaliatory force)
- Geisinger Health Plan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 964 A.2d 970 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (elements and proof required for disparate-treatment defense)