P.J. Orner v. UCBR
P.J. Orner v. UCBR - 1005 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Feb 17, 2017Background
- Patricia J. Orner was a full-time unit clerk employed by US Renal Care from 2002 until her termination on January 25, 2016, for insubordination after she refused to complete an "Emergency Procedure Patient Instruction" form or attend the related training.
- Employer handbook forbids refusal of assignments and insubordination; Claimant knew of these policies and her job duties included completing required forms.
- Claimant said the task was clinical and that she had been told by a clinical specialist she could not perform clinical duties; Employer managers repeatedly told her the task was non-clinical and offered training.
- Claimant continued to refuse training and to complete the form after HR warned that refusal would be insubordination and could lead to termination; she was suspended and then fired.
- Claimant applied for unemployment compensation; the local service center granted benefits, but a referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e) (willful misconduct). Claimant appealed to this Court.
Issues
| Issue | Orner's Argument | US Renal Care's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant’s refusal to perform the assigned task constituted willful misconduct under §402(e) | Orner contends she reasonably believed the task was clinical and illegal for her to perform, so refusal was not willful | Employer asserts Claimant willfully violated known work rules by refusing a reasonable, non-clinical assignment and training | Court: Refusal was willful misconduct; Employer proved a reasonable rule, knowledge of it, and a willful violation |
| Whether Employer’s directive was reasonable | Orner argues the directive was unreasonable because it involved clinical duties beyond her qualifications | Employer maintains the assignment was non-clinical, within job duties, and Employer repeatedly explained that to Claimant | Court: Substantial evidence supports that the directive was reasonable and non-clinical |
| Whether Claimant established good cause for refusal | Orner claims good cause because she believed the work was clinical and she lacked qualifications | Employer contends Claimant’s unsubstantiated belief is insufficient where she was reassured and offered training | Court: Claimant failed to show good cause; mere belief without evidence insufficient |
| Standard of review—credibility and substantial evidence | Orner challenges several Board findings as unsupported | Employer points to testimony and documentary evidence supporting Board findings | Court: Applies deferential review; Board credibility determinations and factual findings are supported by substantial evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 A.3d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (definition of willful misconduct)
- Vought v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 504 A.2d 425 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (employer must prove existence of reasonable rule, employee knowledge, and willful violation)
- Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (burden shifts to employee to prove good cause once work-rule violation shown)
- Stringent v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 1084 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (substantial-evidence review favoring prevailing party)
- Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (conflicting testimony not grounds for reversal when substantial evidence supports Board)
- Bell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility determinations accorded deference)
- Ayres v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 598 A.2d 1083 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (good cause cannot be established by unsubstantiated beliefs)