Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 105 A.3d 839

Background

Claimant (Thomas Scott, Jr.) was a residential supervisor at Lifesteps for over four years; he helped develop behavior plans for residents with mental and developmental disabilities.
A committee revised resident D.H.’s behavior plan over Claimant’s objections; Claimant was directed to submit written concerns by Jan. 7, 2013 and emailed a lengthy report on Jan. 10, 2013 to two senior managers.
The email criticized a senior director, Jim Schellhammer, using sarcastic remarks questioning his psychiatric qualifications; Claimant admitted the sarcasm and said it was intended to advocate for D.H.’s care.
Employer suspended Claimant after a meeting where Claimant reacted angrily to an interruption, then discharged him citing multiple incidents but relying at hearing primarily on the two sarcastic email statements as insubordination.
The Referee and Board found those sarcastic statements amounted to willful misconduct (insubordination) and denied unemployment benefits; Claimant appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court reversed, holding sarcasm in a private email to senior management, not directed at the supervisor, did not establish insubordination or willful misconduct absent an explicit rule forbidding sarcasm.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the Referee’s factual finding about the two sarcastic statements is supported by substantial evidence	Finding misquoted email; but Claimant admitted sarcasm so factual basis exists	Employer relied on Referee finding that statements were sarcastic and derogatory	Court: variance in quotation immaterial; admission of sarcasm supports factual finding but not dispositive legally
Whether the sarcastic email statements violated a work rule or amounted to insubordination/willful misconduct	Sarcasm to senior management is not insubordination; no rule prohibited sarcasm; comments were meant to advocate for a resident	Employer invoked Handbook (insubordination/failure to cooperate) and general expectations (good judgment, harmonious environment)	Court: Employer failed to show these specific statements violated a work rule or constituted insubordination when sent privately to senior management
Whether Employer met its burden to prove the email statements were the actual reason for discharge	Claimant: Employer offered shifting reasons; at hearing the two statements were the only proven cause relied on	Employer: Termination based on multiple incidents including the email and meeting behavior	Court: Employer is bound by stated reasons and must prove actual cause; record showed termination relied on the two email statements, which were insufficient for willful misconduct
Whether Claimant had good cause or provocation that would excuse the conduct	Claimant: Sarcasm was provoked by safety/clinical concerns about D.H. and aimed at senior management to correct care	Employer: Sarcasm undermined authority and workplace harmony; justified discharge	Court: Did not need to decide good-cause because willful misconduct was not established; noted context and that comments were not addressed to the supervisor supported reversal

Key Cases Cited

Altemus v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 681 A.2d 866 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) (defines willful misconduct categories)
PMA Reinsurance Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 558 A.2d 623 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (question of willful misconduct is a legal issue reviewed de novo)
Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 814 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
Bishop Carroll High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (employer must show existence and reasonableness of work rule and awareness)
BK Foods, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 547 A.2d 873 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (employer must show rule and knowing violation)
Gillins v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 633 A.2d 1150 (Pa. 1993) (burden shifts to claimant to prove rule unreasonable or good cause)
Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (context matters when determining whether offensive language is insubordinate)
Browning-Ferris Industries of Pennsylvania, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 561 A.2d 856 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (employer must prove act was actual reason for discharge)
Grigsby v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 447 A.2d 705 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (criticizing employer may be disqualifying if inappropriately channeled)
Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer is bound by reasons stated for discharge at initial filing)