Oyetayo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
110 A.3d 1117
Pa. Commw. Ct.2015Background
- Claimant (staffing accountant) worked for Montgomery County Dept. of Behavioral Health from Aug 2007 to July 1, 2013 and filed for unemployment benefits in July 2013.
- Employer's employee handbook contained an "Acceptable Use of Electronic Resources" policy permitting only de minimis personal use; Claimant signed an acknowledgment of the handbook in 2012.
- Claimant received prior warnings (Mar 2008, May 2011, Feb 1, 2013) for unauthorized personal use of office equipment, phone abuse, and internet misuse; the Feb 2013 warning threatened further discipline up to termination.
- In April–May 2013 Claimant sent multiple personal emails from his work computer (to his wife and others); one non-work email was accidentally sent to the COO on May 20, 2013.
- Employer investigated, interviewed Claimant, and terminated him on July 1, 2013 for continued misuse of equipment and excessive non-work communications.
- Referee and Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found Claimant ineligible for benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct); Commonwealth Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Oyetayo's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether substantial evidence shows violation of Employer's electronic-use policy | Personal emails were brief and occurred during authorized 15-minute breaks or lunch; de minimis use | Handbook policy, signed acknowledgment, and multiple warnings show Claimant continued unauthorized personal use, including numerous emails and accidental COO email | Substantial evidence supported violation: Claimant used work equipment for personal reasons despite policy and warnings |
| Whether Claimant's conduct constituted willful misconduct under § 402(e) | Limited, brief personal email use was reasonable and de minimis; not the level of culpability required for disqualification | Repeated warnings put Claimant on notice; continued intentional use despite warnings amounts to deliberate rule violation | Held willful misconduct: intentional disregard of employer's interests after warnings justified disqualification |
| Whether the de minimis exception applied or was too vague to provide notice | De minimis exception and break policy mean conduct was permissible; exception was vague so insufficient notice | Even if de minimis normally allowed, prior specific warnings removed Claimant's entitlement to that exception | Held exception inapplicable to Claimant because prior warnings explicitly prohibited continued personal use; no vagueness problem as Claimant had notice |
| Whether Board violated due process by not providing Claimant a copy of the certified record filed with the court | Board should have sent certified record to Claimant simultaneously; failure prejudiced appeal | Regulations require providing transcript on request; Claimant did not request a copy from the Board | Held no due process violation: Board had no duty to proactively send the record and Claimant made no request under applicable regulations |
Key Cases Cited
- Temple Univ. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 772 A.2d 416 (Pa. 2001) (defines willful misconduct standards and review scope)
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (employer bears initial burden to prove willful misconduct)
- Navickas v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 787 A.2d 284 (Pa. 2001) (employer initial burden on willful misconduct)
- Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (intentional, deliberate misuse of work time constitutes willful misconduct)
- Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 59 A.3d 1159 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (warnings for prior similar conduct support willful-misconduct disqualification)
- Pettyjohn v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 863 A.2d 162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (accessing internet for personal reasons after admonition constitutes willful misconduct)