S.G. Wu v. UCBR
729 C.D. 2017
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Jan 5, 2018Background
- Claimant Shanyong G. Wu was a part-time table games dealer at Mount Airy Casino (hired Oct 2013) and received multiple written warnings for rule violations before being suspended July 19, 2014 and terminated July 20, 2014 for leaving a table unattended to put his cell phone away.
- Employer's handbook and job description prohibited leaving an assigned table or taking breaks without supervisor approval; Claimant had acknowledged receipt.
- Claimant applied for unemployment benefits on Nov 3, 2014, stating he was laid off for lack of work; the Department paid $10,426.00 before later determinations.
- The Department found Claimant ineligible under 43 P.S. §802(e) (willful misconduct), assessed a fault overpayment under 43 P.S. §874(a), and imposed penalty weeks and a 15% penalty under 43 P.S. §§871(b) and (c).
- A Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) credited Employer’s testimony and records, rejected Claimant’s account, and affirmed ineligibility and penalties; Claimant appealed to this Court, which affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Wu) | Defendant's Argument (UCBR/Employer) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct | Wu: He was laid off because Employer had enough staff | Employer: He was fired for violating progressive-discipline rule by leaving table unattended | Held: UCBR credited Employer; termination was for willful misconduct under §402(e) |
| Whether Claimant’s benefit application created a fault overpayment | Wu: He did not intend to mislead; may have lacked translator guidance | Employer/Dept: He intentionally misrepresented separation as lack of work | Held: Substantial evidence supports finding he intentionally misled Department; fault overpayment affirmed under §804(a) |
| Appropriateness of penalty weeks under §801(b) | Wu: No intentional falsehood; should not be penalized | Dept: False statement/omission justified penalty weeks | Held: Penalty weeks affirmed (assessment consistent with law) |
| Applicability of 15% penalty under §801(c) | Wu: Lack of Mandarin translator excuses misstatement | Dept/Employer: Claimant understood English duties; no excuse | Held: 15% penalty affirmed; translator argument rejected as record shows Claimant understood English |
Key Cases Cited
- Russo v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 A.3d 1000 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (UCBR is factfinder and may reject uncontradicted testimony)
- Oliver v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (en banc) (defines willful misconduct factors)
- Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer bears burden to prove rule and violation; claimant must show good cause)
- Bell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (UCBR credibility determinations are entitled to deference)
- Maiorana v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 453 A.2d 747 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (fault requires examination of claimant’s state of mind)
- Chishko v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 934 A.2d 172 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (distinguishes mere mistake from culpable withholding or misleading information)
- Kelly v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 840 A.2d 469 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (definition of fault and culpability)
- Fugh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 153 A.3d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2017) (intentional misstatement supports finding of fault)
- Matvey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 840 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (intentional misstatement can establish fault)