N. Brown v. UCBR, 276 A.3d 322

Background:

Claimant Niaja Brown worked as a part‑time Senior Nursing Assistant at The Children’s Hospital of Philadelphia since 2002; hospital policy (since 2012) required annual influenza vaccination with medical or religious exemptions.
Brown received the vaccine through 2016, notified Employer on Nov. 7, 2017 that she refused the 2017 shot, and submitted an online “Advance Vaccine Directive” (AVD) asserting informed‑consent rights but not a medical or religious exemption.
Employer suspended Brown after she missed the Nov. 15 deadline, gave until Dec. 5 to vaccinate or submit qualifying exemption, and terminated her Dec. 6, 2017 for noncompliance.
Brown’s UC claim was denied by the Service Center and, after hearing (Employer did not appear), by the Referee and the Board, which found the vaccine policy reasonable and Brown’s refusal lacking good cause, constituting willful misconduct under Section 402(e).
The Commonwealth Court (majority) affirmed the Board: policy reasonable given patient safety, Brown deliberately refused a reasonable condition of employment, and she is ineligible for UC benefits; Judge McCullough dissented, arguing Brown exercised a common‑law right of medical self‑determination and that Employer applied exemptions inconsistently (no evidence why secular objectors couldn’t receive accommodations like masking).

Issues:

Issue	Brown's Argument	Employer's Argument	Held
Reasonableness of the vaccine policy	Policy unfair as Employer accepted religious/medical exemptions and should accept AVD; Brown invoked informed‑consent/self‑determination	Policy is reasonable to protect vulnerable pediatric patients; vaccination is a legitimate employment condition	Policy was reasonable given patient‑safety interest and nature of hospital work
Good cause for refusal / willful misconduct	Brown had a common‑law right to refuse medical treatment and relied on AVD; refusal was lawful exercise of self‑determination	Brown provided no medical or religious exemption, knowingly refused a stated condition of continued employment	Brown failed to show good cause; deliberate refusal to meet reasonable employment condition = willful misconduct → UC ineligible
Use/acceptance of AVD as exemption	AVD should have been treated as valid exemption	AVD was not a medical or religious exemption and conferred no legal right	AVD was insufficient; Board reasonably rejected it as justification
Procedural/subpoena claim	Brown contends Referee denied subpoena for health records	Board says issue not raised before Referee	Waived for appeal (not preserved)

Key Cases Cited

Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (defines "willful misconduct" standards)
Klampfer v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 182 A.3d 495 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (employer must prove existence, reasonableness, and violation of policy)
Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 138 A.3d 50 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (policy‑violation requires deliberate or intentional violation)
Webb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 670 A.2d 1212 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (tests reasonableness of workplace rules by fairness and legitimacy of employer interest)
Rebel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 723 A.2d 156 (Pa. 1998) (balancing employer directives and employee rights; employer prerogative to set workplace rules)
Simpson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 450 A.2d 305 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (employee implied obligation to cooperate when request is circumstantially reasonable)
Duquesne Light Co. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 474 A.2d 407 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (exercising a legally protected right can constitute reasonable conduct and negate willful misconduct)
Ault v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 157 A.2d 375 (Pa. 1960) (denial of UC benefits improper where claimant exercised legally protected rights)
Fallon v. Mercy Catholic Medical Ctr., 877 F.3d 487 (3d Cir. 2017) (religious‑accommodation analysis for vaccine refusal under Title VII; distinguishes religious from secular/medical beliefs)
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (employer must prove existence and violation of a rule; reasonableness inquiry)
Spirnak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 557 A.2d 451 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (reasonableness of rule measured by fairness to accomplish legitimate employer interest)