L.M. English v. UCBR
155 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Dec 7, 2016Background
- Linda M. English was an ER technician at Aria Health from 2001 until her discharge on September 4, 2015, for excessive lateness/absenteeism.
- Employer maintained an Attendance Policy charging "occurrences" for lateness/absences and a Human Resources Manual with a progressive-discipline matrix (coaching → initial warning → final warning → discharge) but expressly stated the matrix was guidance and that steps could be added, passed-over, or immediate termination imposed at Employer’s sole discretion.
- Claimant accumulated multiple attendance occurrences between Dec. 2013 and Aug. 2015, received a coaching notice (Sept. 24, 2014) and an initial warning for attendance (Feb. 2, 2015) that warned further occurrences could lead to termination; she also received an unrelated final warning (May 15, 2015) for taking a patient’s pants.
- Employer discharged Claimant after a two-hour, five-minute lateness on Aug. 3, 2015, citing habitual tardiness and absenteeism.
- A UC referee found willful misconduct and denied benefits; the Board of Review affirmed, crediting Employer’s testimony that its progressive discipline was discretionary and that the final warning and Claimant’s attendance history justified bypassing steps. Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s discharge constituted willful misconduct under 43 P.S. §802(e) | English: Employer failed to follow its progressive-discipline policy (no final warning specific to attendance), so discharge cannot be willful misconduct | Employer: Policy and Manual reserve discretion to bypass steps; Claimant had habitual, excessive occurrences and received prior warnings | Court held discharge was willful misconduct: Board reasonably found Employer’s discipline discretionary and Claimant’s habitual tardiness (after warning) justified termination |
| Whether Employer was required to follow its progressive-discipline matrix before discharge | English: PMA requires employers to follow their specific discipline systems | Employer: Manual expressly makes matrix non-binding and allows bypassing steps | Held: Manual’s language gave Employer discretion; precedent allows deviation where process is discretionary |
| Whether Claimant’s attendance record amounted to behavior inimical to employer’s interest | English: Employer tolerated past tardiness and thus acquiesced | Employer: Prior coaching and initial warning show enforcement and notice that further occurrences could lead to termination | Held: Court found occurrences habitual/excessive and initial warning provided adequate notice, supporting willful misconduct finding |
| Whether any good cause or justification for infractions was shown | English: (no successful justification at court) | Employer: No good cause shown; infractions unsupported | Held: Claimant did not establish good cause for lateness/absences; court relied on absence of justification |
Key Cases Cited
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (defines willful misconduct burden and standards)
- Owens v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 748 A.2d 794 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (employer must prove rule, reasonableness, and violation)
- PMA Reinsurance Corporation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (employer must generally follow its disciplinary system)
- Johnson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 744 A.2d 817 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (employer need not follow policy where process is discretionary)
- Orend v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 821 A.2d 659 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (employer need not promulgate specific rule where standard of behavior is obvious and conduct is inimical)
- Fritz v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (habitual tardiness is inimical to employer interests)
- Department of Transportation v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Nelson), 479 A.2d 57 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (warnings for prior similar conduct support finding of willful misconduct)
- Conibear v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 463 A.2d 1231 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983) (chronic tardiness after warning can constitute willful misconduct)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (no detailed termination policy required where habitual tardiness and notice exist)
- Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Glenn, 350 A.2d 890 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976) (habitual tardiness after warnings can sustain willful misconduct finding)