J. Krotz v. UCBR
200 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Oct 19, 2016Background
- Claimant Jacqueline Krotz was a full-time teacher’s assistant at Ginger Bread House Daycare from October 2014 until her discharge on September 3, 2015.
- Employer had a written policy prohibiting employees from causing physical harm to children; Claimant acknowledged awareness of that policy.
- Incident: while removing highchair trays, Claimant lifted a 20-month-old child by one arm, placed her on the floor, and then continued cleaning; the child later was found to have a dislocated arm and was taken by ambulance to hospitals.
- Employer discharged Claimant for violating the no-harm policy; Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits and was denied under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct).
- Procedural history: UC Service Center denied benefits; a Referee affirmed; the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirmed; Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court, which affirmed the UCBR.
Issues
| Issue | Krotz's Argument | UCBR/Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant committed willful misconduct by deliberately violating Employer’s rule | Krotz: She did not deliberately violate the rule; she did not realize the child was injured and lifted without intent to harm | Employer: Claimant knew the rule and lifted improperly (by one arm), causing injury; violation supports willful misconduct | Held: Claimant’s admitted improper one-arm lift and resulting injury constitute deliberate violation and willful misconduct |
| Whether the work rule was reasonable or Claimant had good cause to violate it | Krotz: The child showed no immediate signs of injury (not crying), so no culpable disregard | Employer: Rule reasonable; Claimant knew proper lifting technique and had no good cause to deviate | Held: Rule was reasonable; Claimant failed to show good cause, so burden shift favors Employer |
| Whether Claimant disregarded the standard of behavior Employer could expect | Krotz: She claims she did not realize injury and attended to child after initially checking | Employer: Surveillance and testimony showed Claimant ignored the child and continued cleaning, demonstrating disregard | Held: UCBR credibility findings (favoring Employer and surveillance) supported that Claimant acted below expected standards |
| Whether UCBR’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence | Krotz: Contends evidence could support alternate findings | Employer: Video and testimony support UCBR findings | Held: Substantial evidence supports UCBR findings; appellate review defers to fact-finder credibility determinations |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (defines willful misconduct in UC context)
- Lewis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 375 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employer must prove existence of rule and its violation)
- Cnty. of Luzerne v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 611 A.2d 1335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1992) (burden shifts to claimant to show rule unreasonable or good cause to violate)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (UCBR is ultimate fact-finder; resolves credibility and evidentiary conflicts)
- Sanders v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (explains substantial evidence standard)
- Turgeon v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 729 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope of appellate review limited to legal error, constitutional violations, or lack of substantial evidence)