M.J. Daniels Fusco v. UCBR
2119 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 3, 2018Background
- Claimant Maria J. Daniels Fusco was a part‑time Brand Ambassador for Advantage Sales & Marketing from Oct. 2015 to Aug. 7, 2016, working in PetSmart stores to promote a specific dog food.
- Employer trained Claimant and instructed ambassadors not to discuss or comment on products they were not promoting and to refer such questions to PetSmart staff; Claimant acknowledged receiving and reading the policy.
- PetSmart management reported unprofessional conduct by Claimant on multiple occasions (June and July 2016), including lengthy attempts to convert customers and commenting that a requested flea medication would harm animals.
- Claimant was coached on June 17, 2016 and later, on July 24, 2016, told a customer that a particular flea product was known to harm animals; PetSmart asked that Claimant not return to the store.
- Employer terminated Claimant on Aug. 7, 2016 for willful misconduct; Claimant applied for UC benefits, was denied by the Service Center, the Referee, and the UCBR, and appealed to this Court pro se.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant committed willful misconduct connected to work | Claimant argued she was not aware her conduct was misconduct and that allegations were untrue; she was relaying veterinarian information | Employer argued Claimant violated its rule forbidding comment on other products after training and prior coaching; conduct was unprofessional and repeated | Court held substantial evidence supported UCBR finding of willful misconduct; benefits disallowed |
| Whether Employer met burden to prove misconduct | Claimant argued evidence and findings were inaccurate | Employer presented policy, Claimant’s acknowledgment, supervisory testimony, coaching records, and PetSmart complaints | Court held Employer satisfied burden; credibility determinations were for UCBR |
| Whether Claimant showed good cause for her actions | Claimant claimed justification based on veterinarian knowledge | Employer asserted no good cause and prior warnings made conduct unjustified | Court held Claimant failed to establish good cause; UCBR reasonably rejected her testimony |
| Whether UCBR’s factual findings were supported by substantial evidence | Claimant contended findings were untrue and unsupported | Employer pointed to training, policy acknowledgement, and witness testimony supporting findings | Court held UCBR’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and are conclusive on appeal |
Key Cases Cited
- Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (definition of willful misconduct)
- Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burden shifts to claimant to show good cause)
- Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (UCBR is ultimate fact‑finder; its findings are conclusive if supported by substantial evidence)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (UCBR may reject testimony and resolve credibility)
- Sanders v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (substantial evidence standard explained)