K.M. Stevenson v. UCBR
K.M. Stevenson v. UCBR - 909 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 19, 2017Background
- Stevenson worked for Reliant Prospect Park from Aug 2013 to Jan 18, 2016; promoted to Unit Clerk in Oct 2015 but deemed not a good fit after probation.
- On Jan 18, 2016, Employer informed Stevenson she would not remain Unit Clerk and offered CNA shifts; she was packing her things when items were found in an Iron Mountain shredding bin.
- Employer employees recovered four binders containing residents’ lab reports, sign-in forms, appointment/follow-up information, and some of Stevenson’s personal emails/login information.
- Stevenson admitted she “may have done that,” testified she disposed of items to prevent identity theft and believed some were her personal property.
- Referee found Stevenson committed willful misconduct (attempting to destroy company property) and denied benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e); the Board affirmed.
- Commonwealth Court reviewed the Board’s credibility determinations and substantial‑evidence findings, affirmed denial of benefits; Judge Brobson dissented.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant committed willful misconduct connected to work | Stevenson: items were personal, not employer property; Employer lacked substantial evidence she placed binders in shred bin | Employer: testimony of staff and claimant’s admission support that claimant placed resident records in shred bin, harming employer interests | Court held claimant committed willful misconduct; substantial evidence supports Board’s findings |
| Whether claimant established good cause for disposal | Stevenson: acted to prevent identity theft; unaware documents were employer property | Employer: disposal destroyed or risked destruction of resident records and impeded operations | Court held claimant failed to prove good cause |
| Admissibility/weight of hearsay and claim admission | Stevenson: challenges evidentiary basis and lack of physical evidence produced for review | Employer: testimony admitted without objection; claimant’s statement was against interest and admissible | Court found hearsay admissible where unobjected and claimant’s admission admissible; credited employer witnesses |
| Whether timing of termination undermines causal link to alleged shredding | Stevenson: delay in termination after incident suggests remoteness/other reasons | Employer: termination followed investigation and claimant’s admission | Court deemed timing not raised before Board (waived) and not persuasive on appeal; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (definition and burden allocation for willful misconduct)
- Curran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 752 A.2d 938 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (Board as factfinder and credibility determinations)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (substantial‑evidence standard on appeal)
- Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (focus on evidence supporting findings made by factfinder)
- Owoc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 809 A.2d 441 (Pa. Cmwlth.) (binding effect of Board’s factual findings)