ProGuard Warranty, Inc. v. UCBR
9 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 16, 2016Background
- Claimant was employed as a full-time sales representative for ProGuard until March 16, 2015, when he was allegedly terminated.
- At a March 16 meeting, promotion to regional manager was discussed; Claimant declined promotion, expressing interest in wholesaling cars.
- Claimant was questioned about involvement with other warranty companies; he denied involvement and later stated, “I don’t need this; I’m out of here.”
- Employer asked Claimant to turn in company phone and materials and proposed a voluntary resignation letter, which Claimant refused to sign.
- The Referee concluded Claimant voluntary quit without necessitous and compelling cause; the Board reversed, finding no quit and that Claimant was discharged; Employer appealed.
- The court upheld the Board, concluding the totality of circumstances showed a discharge, not a voluntary quit.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant quit or was discharged | Claimant did not quit; statements ended interrogation and he stayed | Employer evidence shows Claimant voluntarily quit by saying he was done | Claimant was discharged; not a voluntary quit |
| Whether the Board’s factual credibility determinations are supported by substantial evidence | Board credited Claimant’s testimony over Employer’s version | Board improperly credited testimony; misread actions as discharge | Board’s findings supported by substantial evidence |
| Whether the burden-shifting framework was properly applied | Once discharge shown, burden shifts to employer to prove willful misconduct | Claimant’s discharge did not establish willful misconduct as a basis for termination | Proper framework applied; no willful misconduct established on record |
Key Cases Cited
- Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (burden shifts from claimant to employer after discharge finding)
- Procyson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 4 A.3d 1124 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (totality of circumstances governs quit vs. discharge)
- Fekos Enterprises v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 776 A.2d 1018 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (conscious intention required for voluntary quit)
- Sanders v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 739 A.2d 616 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (evidence viewed in claimant-favorable light on review)
- Palladino v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 81 A.3d 1096 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence; defer to Board on credibility)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board’s role as ultimate fact-finder; substantial evidence standard)