H. Wotring v. UCBR, H. Wotring v. UCBR

Claimant Holly Wotring worked as an Administrative Assistant and Safe Crisis Management (SCM) Trainer for Employer from April 2013 until April 2016 and was placed on a 30-day performance improvement plan in February 2016.
Employer scheduled termination for April 23, 2016, for unsatisfactory performance but told Claimant on April 4 she still had to conduct scheduled SCM trainings in April and would be paid.
On April 4 the clinical director found Claimant clearing her desk and testified she said she was "unavailable" to conduct the trainings; Claimant disputes this and said she cleared her desk later.
Claimant did not perform the trainings, emailed that she was ill on April 5, and applied for another job that same day; she did not provide her doctor’s note to Employer.
Employer discharged Claimant April 5 for refusing to perform assigned trainings; the Referee and Board found willful misconduct under Section 402(e) and denied UC benefits.
Claimant appealed to this Court arguing (1) Board findings lack substantial evidence and (2) her April 5 absence was justified by illness; the Court affirmed the Board.

Issue	Wotring's Argument	Employer/Board's Argument	Held
Whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Wotring contends the Board credited incorrect facts (denies refusing training; disputes timing of clearing desk)	Clinical director’s testimony is credible and supports Board findings; Court must defer to Board credibility determinations	Findings are supported by substantial evidence; Court defers to Board credibility findings
Whether Claimant’s refusal to perform scheduled trainings constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e)	Wotring says she was ill on April 5 and thus had good cause for absence	Employer shows she refused the directive on April 4 and that performing trainings was a reasonable job duty; illness on April 5 (unsupported to Employer) does not excuse earlier refusal	Refusal to perform reasonable work directive is willful misconduct; Claimant failed to prove good cause (illness not timely reported to Employer)

Johnson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (defines substantial evidence review and deference to Board credibility)
Clark v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 471 A.2d 1309 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (substantial evidence standard)
Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definition of willful misconduct)
Kretsch v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 476 A.2d 1004 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (refusal to follow directive without good cause is willful misconduct)
Dougherty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 686 A.2d 53 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (illness justifies refusal only when health/safety threatened; extraordinary circumstances required)
Gardner v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 372 A.2d 38 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (absence from work due to sickness is not willful misconduct if properly reported)
Walsh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer bears burden to prove discharge was for willful misconduct)