Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2014 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 184
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2014Background
- Claimant (Christopher Johns) worked >5 years as a customer service representative for UPMC and has an emotional disability accommodated via Work Partners.
- Claimant was agitated after he could not reach his Work Partners advocate; co-workers alerted his supervisor, who took him to a closed-door meeting.
- During that meeting the supervisor testified Claimant said something to the effect of, “if [advocate] would’ve been in the building, he could’ve hurt her.”
- Employer suspended then terminated Claimant for violating a workplace rule prohibiting “threatening, abusing, or doing harm to others.”
- The Unemployment Compensation referee and the Board found Claimant committed willful misconduct by making a threat; Claimant sought judicial review contesting (1) that his words were conditional/de minimis and (2) that they were a threat at all.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s statement was a "threat" amounting to willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Statement was conditional, lacked intent, impossible to carry out (advocate not present), and thus not a threat or only de minimis | Words (“hurt”) + Claimant’s agitated demeanor and coworkers’ alarm made the statement a credible, disruptive threat | Court held statement was a true threat under the totality of circumstances and constituted willful misconduct |
| Whether Employer established a rule violation sufficient to trigger willful misconduct analysis | Claimant: conditional comment and lack of intent mean no rule violation | Employer: rule against threats existed, was reasonable, and Claimant knew it; he violated it | Court: employer met its burden (existence, reasonableness, knowledge); violation proven |
| Whether the comment was de minimis or provoked (good cause) | Claimant: remark was de minimis; relied on older case law and alleged provocation | Employer: threats that violate rules are not de minimis; no provocation shown in record | Court: de minimis argument inapplicable where rule violation; provocation not preserved/waived; de minimis rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2002) (defines willful misconduct standards)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (burden and rule-violation framework)
- Sheets v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 708 A.2d 884 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (threats to co-workers constitute willful misconduct)
- Aversa v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 565 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (threat defined as communication conveying intent to inflict harm; absence of intent requires objective words)
- J.S. v. Bethlehem Area Sch. Dist., 807 A.2d 847 (Pa. 2002) (totality-of-circumstances test for true threats)