K. Humphries v. UCBR, K. Humphries v. UCBR

Kayla Humphries worked as a residential assistant for Passavant Memorial Home from Jan 18, 2011 to July 7, 2016 and was discharged for repeated tardiness under Employer’s written attendance/tardiness Policy.
The Policy imposes progressive discipline: written warning after six latenesses in nine months, then a one-day suspension, a three-day suspension, then termination for further infractions.
Employer documented multiple tardiness incidents: Claimant received a written warning, a one-day suspension, a three-day suspension, and was later terminated after another tardiness incident (July 6, 2016). Claimant admitted she was late that day and previously received warnings; she later testified she was stuck in traffic.
The Lancaster UC Service Center found Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) (willful misconduct); a Referee and then the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review affirmed denial of benefits.
Claimant appealed pro se to the Commonwealth Court, challenging (among other things) the number of recorded latenesses, whether she actually served a one-day suspension, whether she had good cause for tardiness, and alleging harassment by co-workers.
The Commonwealth Court reviewed for legal error and substantial evidence and affirmed the Board: substantial evidence supported that Claimant committed willful misconduct by repeatedly violating the employer’s attendance rule.

Issue	Humphries' Argument	Employer/Board Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s termination was for willful misconduct under Section 402(e)	Humphries asserted her July 6 tardiness was due to traffic and did not justify denial of benefits	Employer showed progressive discipline and repeated violations of attendance rule; Claimant knew policy and prior discipline	Held: Termination was willful misconduct; benefits denied (substantial evidence supports finding)
Whether errors in the Board’s count of prior latenesses prejudiced outcome	Humphries argued Board overstated prior latenesses (10 vs 8)	Board conceded counting error but maintained Claimant still exceeded the 6‑day threshold for written warning; error harmless	Held: Harmless error; correction does not change outcome
Whether progressive discipline was not followed (one‑day suspension not served)	Humphries claimed she did not “serve” a one‑day suspension	Employer produced Employee Performance Review signed by Claimant documenting the one‑day suspension	Held: Substantial evidence that the one‑day suspension was imposed and policy was followed
Jurisdictional challenge to Commonwealth Court review	Humphries questioned the Court’s jurisdiction	Court cited statutory jurisdiction to review Board orders	Held: Court’s jurisdiction upheld; challenge denied

Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (habitual tardiness can constitute willful misconduct)
Bowers v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 392 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (denial of benefits for repeated tardiness under a no‑fault clause)
Sturpe v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 823 A.2d 239 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (harmless error doctrine for Board findings)
Philadelphia Parking Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definition and elements of willful misconduct in UC context)
Frazier v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 833 A.2d 1181 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (standard of review for Board decisions)