Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
13 A.3d 553
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2011Background
- Claimant was employed as an extruder operator by Draka Cableteq USA, Inc. until September 25, 2009, when he was discharged for possessing marijuana.
- Claimant had signed a last chance agreement on April 9, 2008, agreeing to abstain from illegal substances and to follow the employer's drug/alcohol policy.
- Employer’s policy prohibits illegal drug possession and violations of state/criminal drug statutes in the workplace or related contexts.
- Claimant admitted to possession of a small amount of marijuana in September 2009, indicating intent to sell.
- The Scranton Service Center initially determined not to deny benefits under Section 3, finding the possession not work-related; the Referee and Board then denied benefits under Section 402(e).
- The dispositive issue is whether the employer must prove that off-premises conduct directly affected the claimant’s workplace performance when denying benefits under Section 402(e).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether off‑premises drug possession can support Section 402(e) willful misconduct without showing direct impact on work performance. | Maskerines contends the burden is on Employer to show direct work impact. | Employer argues only that the work rule existed and was violated; off‑premises conduct need not directly affect performance under 402(e). | Affirmed: no need to prove direct effect; Szostek control applies; off‑premises violation of a last chance work rule suffices under 402(e). |
Key Cases Cited
- Szostek v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 116 Pa.Cmwlth. 7, 541 A.2d 48 (1988) (off-premises drug violations under 402(e) need not be shown to affect job performance)
- Gillins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 534 Pa. 590, 633 A.2d 1150 (1993) (off-duty conduct must be linked to work performance under 402(e))
- Burger v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 569 Pa. 139, 801 A.2d 487 (2002) (off-duty misconduct may be work-connected if it extends to on-the-job performance)
- Nevel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 32 Pa.Cmwlth. 6, 377 A.2d 1045 (1977) (off-duty conduct can be work-connected for 402(e) purposes)
- Derk v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 24 Pa.Cmwlth. 54, 353 A.2d 915 (1976) (more than arrest required under Section 3, not controlling for 402(e))
- Vereen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 29 Pa.Cmwlth. 252, 370 A.2d 1228 (1977) (evidence beyond arrest needed; distinguishable from 402(e) context in Szostek)
- Altemus v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 681 A.2d 866 (Pa.Cmwlth.1996) (distinguished; not controlling for last chance agreement scenario)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 550 Pa. 115, 703 A.2d 452 (1997) (establishes burden when work rule violation basis under 402(e))
- Gillins, 534 Pa. 590, - (1993) (see above)