S.Z. Farkas v. UCBR
2673 C.D. 2015
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Aug 26, 2016Background
- Claimant worked as a teacher at the Jewish Community Center of York from 1998 until termination on June 29, 2015; she applied for UC benefits July 2, 2015.
- On June 25, 2015 Claimant moved a nonverbal teenage camper with Down syndrome who routinely lay on the classroom carpet; Claimant says she touched the child’s sock to move him for safety; a co-worker testified Claimant grasped the child’s arm and attempted to drag him.
- Employer asserted a zero‑touch policy (except for emergencies or safety risks) allegedly based on DHS regulations; Employer fired Claimant for violating that rule.
- At the Referee hearing, the Referee limited Claimant’s counsel’s questioning about the policy and concluded Claimant knew of the rule and resolved credibility in Employer’s favor, finding Claimant dragged the child.
- The Board adopted the Referee’s findings but issued inconsistent credibility findings (stating Claimant attempted to drag the child while also crediting testimony that there was no immediate safety issue).
- The Commonwealth Court concluded the record lacks substantial evidence identifying the precise policy or showing it derives from a DHS regulation, and found the Board’s inconsistent credibility determinations (about whether Claimant reasonably believed there was a safety risk) required vacatur and remand for clarification.
Issues
| Issue | Farkas's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Existence of a no‑touch rule and basis in DHS regulation | Employer failed to prove the rule existed or was based on a DHS regulation | Employer contends a no‑touch rule existed and reflects DHS requirements | Court: No substantial evidence that the alleged policy is based on a DHS regulation; some generalized policy existed but precise substance not proven |
| Claimant’s knowledge of the rule | Farkas argues she was unaware of a written rule and was prevented from developing evidence | Employer says Claimant knew the restriction (Claims Form and testimony) | Court: Substantial evidence supports that Claimant generally knew of restrictions against touching except for safety reasons despite hearing limitations |
| Whether Claimant violated the rule deliberately (willful misconduct) | Farkas claims touching was safety‑motivated and not deliberate misconduct | Employer says testimony proves violation and no legitimate safety need existed | Court: Inconsistent credibility findings about whether a safety risk existed prevent determination of willful misconduct; remand required |
| Reasonableness of touching under circumstances (safety exception) | Farkas: touching was reasonable to prevent harm to child and others | Employer: there was no immediate safety risk; touching was unreasonable | Court: Must resolve whether Claimant had a credible, reasonable safety concern; remand to decide reasonableness |
Key Cases Cited
- Oyetayo v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 110 A.3d 1117 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015) (employer bears burden to prove rule existed, was reasonable, claimant knew it, and claimant violated it)
- Eshbach v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 855 A.2d 943 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (employee must deliberately violate a rule for willful misconduct)
- Peak v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985) (Board is ultimate factfinder; substantial evidence standard defined)
- Chapman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 20 A.3d 603 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (Board may accept or reject testimony even if uncorroborated)