Palladino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
81 A.3d 1096
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2013Background
- Claimant Michael W. Palladino was employed as an operations supervisor at Bethlehem's wastewater treatment plant until his discharge on November 7, 2012.
- He was discharged after a DUI arrest on August 18, 2012 and related off-duty conduct that allegedly violated the City's Code of Ethics.
- Employer suspended Palladino with pay on August 20, 2012 and subsequently terminated him for ethics violations related to off-duty conduct.
- The Unemployment Compensation Service Center denied benefits under Section 3 for non-work-related misconduct, which the Referee treated as potentially superseded by Section 402(e).
- The Referee held Palladino's off-duty DUI and related conduct constituted willful misconduct connected with work under Section 402(e), justifying denial of benefits.
- The Board affirmed, adopting the Referee's findings, and concluded Palladino's conduct violated the Code of Ethics and was not protected by ADA considerations.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether 402(e) or 3 should govern | Palladino argues 402(e) misapplies off-duty conduct to work-related misconduct. | Bethlehem contends off-duty conduct that violates ethics can be work-related under 402(e). | 402(e) governs denial for work-related misconduct; otherwise 3 applies. |
| Off-duty conduct as willful misconduct | Off-duty DUI does not necessarily reflect on job performance. | Employer asserts off-duty conduct violating ethics amounts to willful misconduct. | Off-duty conduct alone, unless it extends to job performance, is not willful misconduct under 402(e). |
| Awareness of Code of Ethics | Claimant argues insufficient evidence he should have understood the ethics code. | Employer asserts Claimant was aware of the Code and violations were willful. | Finding that Claimant was aware of the Code was not dispositive to willful misconduct under 402(e); the Board erred in treating the Code alone as sufficient. |
| Reasonableness of the Code of Ethics | Code's reasonableness and impact on work performance were not properly established. | Code reflects expected conduct; violations show disregard for standards. | The Board failed to establish the Code's reasonableness as a basis for willful misconduct under 402(e). |
| Relation to ADA and similarly situated employees | As to ADA and treatment comparisons, Palladino contends applicability of protections. | Board found not in recovery and thus ADA not applicable; similarly situated comparators were not shown. | ADA considerations and comparator evidence are not necessary to the reversal of 402(e) finding; willful misconduct not established. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burger v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 569 Pa. 139 (Pa. 2002) (distinguishes 402(e) vs 3 analysis; job-relatedness required)
- SEPTA v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 506 A.2d 971 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986) (factors for whether conduct directly reflects job performance)
- Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 546 A.2d 750 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (off-duty conduct unbecoming may not be work-related)
- Manross v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 572 A.2d 49 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (differentiates work-related vs off-duty misconduct depending on employment context)
- Dunbar v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 475 A.2d 1355 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (Code of Conduct does not automatically convert off-duty conduct to work-related misconduct)
- Walsh v. Unemployment Co. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (rule about proving a rule/policy violation and good cause defense)