Lewis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
42 A.3d 375
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Lewis worked as a full-time janitorial cleaner for ABM Janitorial Services from Dec 7, 2002, to Jan 23, 2011.
- Late night of Jan 22, 2011, Lewis argued loudly with coworker Tim Freedman at Pittsburgh International Airport.
- The dispute involved threats and discussions about firearms and toughness; coworkers overheard.
- On Jan 23, 2011 Lewis was suspended; February 3, 2011 his discharge was finalized; Freedman was also discharged.
- Employer asserted a policy prohibiting threatening conduct and presented two statements by Lewis; Lewis claimed no threats were made and disputed the policy specificity.
- UCBR affirmed the referee’s willful misconduct finding; Lewis appealed, arguing lack of substantial evidence and policy specificity; the court reversed, finding no substantial evidence of willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was substantial evidence that Lewis violated a specific work rule | Lewis argues no identifiable rule was proven. | UCBR held there was a policy prohibiting threatening conduct. | No substantial evidence of a specific rule violation. |
| Whether Lewis’ conduct constituted willful misconduct by violating employer standards | Claimant did not threaten violence; behavior was de minimis. | UCBR found conduct below employer standards. | Not proven; conduct did not reach willful misconduct. |
| Whether the employer adequately proved existence and applicability of the policy | Employer failed to specify the exact rule and did not produce a written policy. | Policy against threatening conduct existed as a harassment policy. | Policy not properly proven or proven applicable. |
| Whether Lewis had knowledge or should have known of the policy | No evidence that Lewis was aware of a specific rule. | Policy was part of employer rules and regulations. | No proof of knowledge or awareness. |
Key Cases Cited
- Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (burden-shifting framework for willful misconduct proof)
- Goodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 Pa.Cmwlth. 417 (Pa.Cmwlth.1981) (need for specific rule violation evidence)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa.Cmwlth.2010) (en banc standard for willful misconduct analysis)
- Andrews v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 159 Pa.Cmwlth. 455 (Pa.Cmwlth.1993) (threats may disqualify but facts must show threat violation)
- Pennsylvania National Insurance Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 109 Pa. Cmwlth. 587 (Pa.Cmwlth.1987) (no willful misconduct without specific rule evidence)
- Blount v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77 Pa.Cmwlth. 627 (Pa.Cmwlth.1983) (de minimis or provoked conduct not willful misconduct)