Laster v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
80 A.3d 831
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant (program director) employed by Sarah Heinz House from Sept. 2011 to Mar. 2012; Employer had ongoing performance concerns and strained supervisory relations.
- At a March 2012 midyear review, Claimant said to supervisor Singleton, “I’m not calling you a liar, but that is a lie,” allegedly in an agitated tone; Employer discharged Claimant for damaging the supervisor relationship.
- Referee denied unemployment benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct); Claimant appealed to the UCBR.
- UCBR initially reversed the referee on Oct. 12, 2012, finding the comment not sufficiently egregious to constitute willful misconduct and awarded benefits.
- Employer filed a five-page reconsideration request rearguing facts; UCBR granted reconsideration (Nov. 9, 2012) without stating reasons or taking new evidence and subsequently reinstated the denial of benefits (Jan. 7, 2013).
- Commonwealth Court held UCBR abused its discretion by granting reconsideration without good cause, vacated the Jan. 7 order, reinstated the Oct. 12 order, and awarded benefits. Judge Cohn Jubelirer concurred in result but would have reversed on the merits.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether UCBR properly granted reconsideration | UCBR abused discretion; reconsideration allowed only for good cause (new evidence, changed circumstances, or missed legal issue) | Reconsideration appropriate to correct perceived errors and readdress facts/legal analysis | UCBR abused discretion: employer only reargued case; no new evidence, changed facts, or legal omission shown; grant vacated |
| Whether Claimant’s statement constituted willful misconduct under §402(e) | Statement was not willful misconduct — not vulgar/abusive and did not rise to egregiousness | Accusing supervisor of lying at a meeting justified discharge for irreparable supervisory relationship breakdown | UCBR’s initial Oct. 12 finding that comment was not disqualifying willful misconduct reinstated (Majority on procedural ground) |
| Whether UCBR’s failure to state reasons for reconsideration prejudiced Claimant | Failure prevented Claimant from responding and was contrary to regulation requiring ‘‘without prejudice to any party’’ | (Employer implicitly: no prejudice asserted) | Court found omission showed abuse of discretion and prejudice; reversal of reconsideration grant warranted |
| Standard of review for Board’s reconsideration decision | Court should review for abuse of discretion | Same | Court reviews for abuse of discretion and found abuse here |
Key Cases Cited
- Ensle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 740 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (reconsideration requires new evidence, changed circumstances, or overlooked law)
- Bushofsky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 626 A.2d 687 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (reargument of same evidence is not good cause for reconsideration)
- Grcich v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 440 A.2d 681 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (Board erred by granting reconsideration based on external pressure; remand required when reasons not stated)
- Flanagan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 407 A.2d 471 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (record must show a reason to support Board’s exercise of discretion to reconsider)
- Luketic v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 386 A.2d 1045 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978) (calling employer dishonest may be non-disqualifying when reasonable under circumstances)
- Georgia-Pacific Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 630 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993) (Board may grant reconsideration to address legal issues it did not properly resolve)
- Moonlight Mushrooms, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 596 A.2d 1264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (administrative tribunal should be allowed to correct errors early)
- Watkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 A.3d 999 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Board must make necessary factual findings to resolve legal questions)
- Turgeon v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 A.3d 729 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (Board erred when it addressed issue beyond scope of referee’s findings)
- Betz v. Pneumo Abex LLC, 44 A.3d 27 (Pa. 2012) (appeal of final order subsumes challenges to interlocutory orders)
- Barrel of Monkeys, LLC v. Allegheny County, 39 A.3d 559 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (same rule on appeals including prior interlocutory rulings)