Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
77 A.3d 699
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Sandra L. Henderson (Claimant), a former Unemployment Compensation Referee for the PA Dept. of Labor & Industry, was terminated after an internal investigation found she engaged in off‑the‑record (ex parte) communications with claimants and encouraged them to withdraw appeals before hearings.
- Employer's investigation uncovered an inadvertent recording of Claimant speaking with Malak Labeeb and witness testimony from Amy Huffman that Claimant told her a hearing would be a "waste of time" and urged withdrawal; several appellants withdrew after conversations with Claimant.
- Employer relied on its Code of Conduct (prohibiting initiation/consideration of ex parte or off‑record substantive communications) and terminated Claimant on September 23, 2011 after fact‑finding, review of Claimant’s written response, and further investigation.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) assumed jurisdiction (Section 504) and affirmed the service center’s denial of Claimant’s unemployment benefits under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct), finding Claimant violated the Code of Conduct and acted beneath employer expectations.
- Claimant appealed, raising procedural and constitutional objections (transfer to Board, denial of continuances, denial to re‑open the record, confrontation rights, recusal), and contested sufficiency of evidence and application of remoteness doctrine and notice requirements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Transfer to Board jurisdiction (Section 504) | Transfer denied Claimant a referee‑level appeal and opportunity to present additional evidence; claim was not pending before a referee. | Section 504 authorizes Board removal of matters involving former referees; Claimant received a full hearing before an impartial hearing officer. | Transfer proper; Claimant’s due process rights not violated and claim was effectively pending before a referee. |
| Denial of continuances and refusal to re‑open record; confrontation/cross‑examination rights | Delay in receiving subpoenas prevented effective service and impeachment of witness Huffman; denial violated right to confront witnesses. | Claimant delayed in re‑filing subpoenas and in service; hearing officer did not abuse discretion; any inability to examine was self‑inflicted. | Denials upheld; no abuse of discretion and no denial of confrontation rights because delay was Claimant’s fault. |
| Recusal of entire Board / due process | Board is effectively Claimant’s employer and therefore an interested tribunal; members should recuse. | Board is not an interested party (referees appointed by Secretary, Board not involved in termination); rule of necessity applies. | Denial of recusal upheld; no evidence of actual bias and rule of necessity prevents blanket recusal. |
| Willful misconduct (402(e)) — ex parte/off‑record encouragement to withdraw appeals | Claimant asserted common practice of informal pre‑hearing conferences and denied encouraging withdrawals; any violation was inadvertent. | Employer proved rule existence and intentional conduct that discouraged exercise of due process; Claimant failed to show good cause. | Substantial evidence supports Board: Claimant’s conduct constituted willful misconduct (deliberate violation / below employer’s standards). |
| Remoteness of discharge | Termination too temporally remote from May/June misconduct to constitute willful misconduct. | Employer explained delay by detailed administrative investigation and monitoring; no condonation. | Remoteness doctrine inapplicable: Employer sufficiently explained delay and did not condone conduct. |
| Notice of Determination / consideration of issues not stated | Board relied on allegations beyond the Notice (encouraging withdrawal). | Employer put Claimant on notice via termination letter and investigation; factual basis is the same and no prejudice or surprise. | No prejudice shown; Board permissibly considered related misconduct without remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Van Dine v. Gyuriska, 713 A.2d 1104 (Pa. 1998) (abuse of discretion standard explained)
- Skowronek v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 921 A.2d 555 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (denial of last‑minute continuances reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions of willful misconduct)
- Tundel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 404 A.2d 434 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (remoteness doctrine: delay may show condonation)
- Raimondi v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 863 A.2d 1242 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (employer may overcome remoteness by showing investigatory delay)
- Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility determinations upheld)