S.P. Joncas, II v. UCBR
997 C.D. 2016
Pa. Commw. Ct.Feb 1, 2017Background
- Claimant (Steven P. Joncas, II) was a full‑time security officer discharged on February 2, 2016 after allegedly using profane, aggressive language toward his manager following a December 1, 2015 final written warning under Employer’s progressive Corrective Action and Discharge Policy.
- Employer witnesses (HR consultant, security manager, assistant VP) testified Claimant raised his voice, pounded his fist on a desk, and said phrases including “this is fked up” and “what’s the big fking deal,” and that profanity is generally prohibited except when quoting others while reporting incidents.
- Claimant denied using profanity in that incident, claimed profanity was commonplace at work, and suggested he was being pushed out because he sought other employment; he offered no specific examples of similarly situated employees treated differently.
- A UC Referee found Employer’s witnesses credible, credited the December final warning, and concluded Claimant’s conduct amounted to willful misconduct under Section 402(e), denying benefits.
- The UC Board adopted the Referee’s decision; Claimant’s request for reconsideration was denied. Claimant appealed to this Court (pro se), which affirms the Board, holding substantial evidence supports the findings and that the conduct was not de minimis.
Issues
| Issue | Joncas' Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the Board abused discretion by denying reconsideration | Board should have granted reconsideration when Joncas proceeded pro se and claimed ineffective assistance earlier | Denial was within Board’s discretion; no new evidence or changed circumstances warranting reconsideration | Not reviewed on appeal (no timely appeal of reconsideration order); even if reviewed, no abuse of discretion because no new evidence or good cause |
| Whether the Board erred in credibility/findings of fact | Credibility findings were biased; statements were misrecorded | Witness testimony was credible and supported findings (final warning, profanity, aggressive conduct) | Court will not reweigh evidence; Board’s credibility and findings are supported by substantial evidence and affirmed |
| Whether Employer met burden to prove willful misconduct under §402(e) | Joncas argued Employer failed to satisfy elements and conduct was de minimis or provoked | Employer showed policy, final warning, and unprovoked vulgar/aggressive conduct toward supervisor | Held: single unprovoked instance of vulgarity to a supervisor after final warning can constitute willful misconduct; Employer met its burden; conduct not de minimis |
| Whether disparate treatment defense applies | Joncas claimed profanity common and others not fired | Employer says others were disciplined; Joncas did not identify similarly situated employees by name or present credible evidence | Joncas failed to meet burden to show similarly situated employees were treated differently; disparate treatment rejected |
Key Cases Cited
- Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (standards for appellate review of Board findings and credibility; employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
- Viglino v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 525 A.2d 450 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987) (single unprovoked instance of vulgarity to a supervisor may support willful misconduct)
- Cundiff v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 489 A.2d 948 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (vulgar language may be de minimis if provoked or reasonable under circumstances)
- Geisinger Health Plan v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 964 A.2d 970 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (elements and allocation of burden for disparate treatment defense)
- Chartiers Cmty. Mental Health & Retardation Ctr. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 134 A.3d 1165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (appellate courts do not reweigh credibility; give prevailing party benefit of inferences)
- Ensle v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 740 A.2d 775 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (Board’s reconsideration decisions are discretionary; reconsideration requires good cause)
- American Racing Equipment, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 601 A.2d 480 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (definition and theory of disparate treatment defense)