Reading Area Water Authority v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
137 A.3d 658
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2016Background
- Claimant, a maintenance worker, removed parts from a discarded compressor at Employer’s facility on Sept. 28, 2014 and told his supervisor he intended to use them to fix a leaking compressor.
- Employer investigated after parts were found in the filtration plant, suspended Claimant, and charged him with theft and receiving stolen property.
- Claimant entered a 30-day Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program, paid court costs but no restitution, completed probation, and the charges were or will be expunged.
- The UC Service Center denied benefits under 43 P.S. § 802(e); a Referee reversed and granted benefits, and the Board affirmed the Referee.
- Employer appealed, arguing that entry into ARD equates to an admission/conviction and thus proves willful misconduct; the Court reviewed whether the employer met its burden to prove willful misconduct connected with work.
Issues
| Issue | Employer's Argument | Claimant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether entry into ARD is proof of willful misconduct (i.e., admission/conviction) | ARD acceptance shows guilt akin to conviction or nolo contendere and proves theft/willful misconduct | ARD does not determine guilt or produce a conviction; Claimant denied theft and completed ARD without restitution | Entry into ARD is insufficient to prove willful misconduct; employer did not meet its burden |
| Whether employer proved Claimant committed theft (which would be willful misconduct) | Employer relies on ARD and investigation/suspension to establish theft | Claimant asserted he removed parts to repair equipment; no conviction or restitution; Board findings do not establish theft | Employer failed to present sufficient evidence of theft; benefits properly granted |
Key Cases Cited
- Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions and standard for willful misconduct)
- Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review v. Vereen, 370 A.2d 1228 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (entry into ARD is not proof of guilt or conviction for UC purposes)
- Bruce v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 2 A.3d 667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (ARD acceptance insufficient to prove willful misconduct when employee discharged for illegal act)
- Smith v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 967 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (contrast between nolo contendere pleas and other dispositions)
- On Line, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 941 A.2d 786 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (theft by an employee can constitute willful misconduct)