L. George v. UCBR, L. George v. UCBR

Background

Lisa George, a longtime Mercer County DA’s Office trial case manager, was suspended Jan 29, 2016 and terminated Mar 1, 2016 after multiple incidents of unprofessional conduct.
Incidents included admitting to saying an expletive to a crime victim, creating a file titled “Attack on J…,” searching coworkers’ desks for her nephew’s file, denying prior comments, and contacting police departments and victims while on paid administrative leave to solicit favorable "survey" responses.
Employer relied on its Employee Conduct and Discipline Policy (signed by George) prohibiting insubordination, obscene/abusive language, and similar misconduct.
UC Service Center and a Referee found George ineligible for unemployment compensation under 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct); the Board of Review affirmed.
On appeal to the Commonwealth Court, George argued Employer failed to prove willful misconduct, that she had good cause for her actions, and that the Referee curtailed her ability to present evidence. The court affirmed the Board.

Issues

Issue	George's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Whether George committed willful misconduct warranting UC disqualification	Her conduct did not rise to willful misconduct; no specific rule forbade her actions	Multiple prior warnings plus policy violations (insubordination, abusive language, unprofessional conduct) show willful misconduct	Held: Employer met its burden; substantial evidence supports willful misconduct finding
Whether Employer proved existence, reasonableness, and communication of workplace rules	Employer never told her specific limits during suspension; rules not effectively communicated	Employee Handbook and signed acknowledgement plus prior written reprimands show rules existed and were known	Held: Employer proved rules existed, were reasonable, and George violated them
Whether George had good cause for contacting police/victims and other acts during suspension	She believed Employer would not accept her written response and sought testimonial support to save her job; expletive not intentional; nephew-related actions were innocent	Calls were unauthorized while on leave; February 18 letter invited a written response; prior warnings negate good cause	Held: No good cause; calls and other conduct were unjustified and did not excuse insubordination
Whether George was denied a fair hearing (excluded testimony/evidence)	Referee limited testimony on work history, harassment, and other matters, prejudicing her defense	Referee afforded opportunity to testify, made evidentiary rulings (some objections sustained), and George’s counsel cross-examined witnesses	Held: No due-process error; George had ample opportunity to present evidence and object; evidentiary rulings proper

Key Cases Cited

Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (defines willful misconduct and burden shifting)
Spirnak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 557 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
Ellis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (employer must prove existence, reasonableness, and violation of rule)
Oyetayo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 110 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (prior warnings support willful misconduct conclusion)
Docherty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 898 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (good-cause standard; view of circumstances)
Curran v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 752 A.2d 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (Board as factfinder; credibility determinations)
Mathis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (scope of appellate review—substantial evidence)
Big Mountain Imaging v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 48 A.3d 492 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (view record in light most favorable to prevailing party)
Am. Gen. Life & Accident Ins. Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 648 A.2d 1245 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (definition of substantial evidence)