Miller v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
131 A.3d 110
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2015Background
- Darrell J. Miller worked for Wayne Mills Company from October 2008 until employer terminated him by letter dated July 8, 2014 for being absent two weeks without leave after incarceration.
- Miller was incarcerated June 19 (or June 20) to July 14, 2014 for an alleged probation violation based on maintaining a Facebook account; he testified the court later reinstated his probation and found he had not violated it.
- Miller’s wife notified the employer of his incarceration and the scheduled hearing dates; employer nevertheless filled the position and terminated him.
- A UC referee found Miller engaged in willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e) because he violated probation by maintaining the Facebook account and denied benefits; the Board affirmed.
- On appeal, the Commonwealth Court held the Board erred by failing to make an express credibility determination about Miller’s testimony that the criminal court found he did not violate probation and remanded for findings and an opportunity to submit court documentation.
Issues
| Issue | Miller's Argument | Employer/Board's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether claimant’s pretrial incarceration/absences constitute willful misconduct under 43 P.S. § 802(e) | Absence due to incarceration was through no fault of his own; he gave notice and the criminal court found he did not violate probation | Employer contended absence was due to a probation violation (Facebook), justifying discharge for willful misconduct | Remanded: Board must make credibility/findings about the court’s disposition because a finding that Miller was exonerated would negate willful misconduct |
| Whether the Board may independently determine probation violation despite a criminal court disposition | Miller: the criminal court’s ruling precludes relitigation (collateral estoppel) | Board: outcome of criminal proceedings is irrelevant | Court: If Board credits Miller’s testimony and the criminal court adjudicated no violation, collateral estoppel may apply; Board must assess credibility and consider court documentation |
| Whether absence notification was adequate and whether employer’s attendance rules were violated | Miller: he (via wife) properly notified employer of incarceration and hearing dates | Employer: position was important and had to be filled; termination justified | Court: Notice was adequate; whether absences were with good cause depends on criminal-court outcome, so further findings required |
| Whether prior precedent (e.g., Bruce/Wertman/Hawkins) controls result | Miller: Hawkins/Bruce support benefits when incarceration is not due to a conviction or is shown to be through no fault of claimant | Board relied on Bruce to deny benefits here | Court: Distinguished Bruce (where claimant entered ARD) and applied Hawkins/Wertman principles; remanded for findings on whether claimant was adjudicated not to have violated probation |
Key Cases Cited
- Hawkins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 472 A.2d 1191 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (pre-trial incarceration that is not a conviction generally does not establish willful misconduct)
- Wertman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 520 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (conviction supports finding that incarceration and absences grew from claimant’s willful acts)
- Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2 A.3d 667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (acceptance into ARD and nondismissal of charges can show incarceration was not through no fault of claimant; facts may support denial of benefits)
- Medina v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 423 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (conviction distinguishes cases where absenteeism may be held willful)
- Graham v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 840 A.2d 1054 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (issue of willful misconduct is a question of law fully reviewable on appeal)