T. Davies-Coleman v. UCBR
T. Davies-Coleman v. UCBR - 1233 C.D. 2016
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | Apr 4, 2017Background
- Claimant Tami Davies-Coleman was the onsite property manager for McCool Properties from March 2015 until late February 2016 and earned about $53,000/year.
- Employer terminated Claimant for multiple performance-related reasons, identifying a final incident: Claimant changed a tenant's lease end date in the employer system and sent an addendum for signature.
- Employer testified the owners never authorized shortening the lease; they had discussed month-to-month tenancy after the lease expired but did not permit ending the lease early.
- Claimant admitted she had no authority to change lease end dates but said she believed the original lease contained a typographical error (showing a 13-month term) and claimed an owner authorized the change at a meeting.
- The Referee reversed the initial denial of benefits; the Board of Review reversed the Referee, finding Claimant willfully misconducted by altering a legal document without authorization and denying unemployment benefits under Section 402(e).
- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board, holding the Board’s credibility findings were supported by substantial evidence and that the lease modification constituted willful misconduct.
Issues
| Issue | Claimant's Argument | Employer's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether altering the lease end date without authorization constitutes willful misconduct under Section 402(e) | Davies-Coleman: She believed the lease contained a typographical error and had authorization from an owner to correct the date | McCool: She had no authority to change leases; she intentionally altered the lease contrary to instructions and without permission | Altering the lease without authorization was willful misconduct; claimant ineligible for benefits |
| Whether the Board’s credibility findings are supported by substantial evidence | Davies-Coleman: Owners did not testify they discussed changing the lease date at the meeting; her testimony should be credited | McCool: Owners’ testimony and contemporaneous fax revoking signature support conclusion she was unauthorized | Court: Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility determinations supported by substantial evidence and binding |
| Whether one final incident among multiple reasons can be the basis for disqualification | Davies-Coleman: (implied) final incident insufficient if not proven | McCool: Employer may rely on the last or decisive incident for unemployment purposes | Court: Single proven incident of willful misconduct suffices to disqualify claimant |
| Burden of proof on willful misconduct and showing of good cause | Davies-Coleman: (implied) she showed good cause by mistake/typographical correction | McCool: Employer met burden to show misconduct; claimant must show good cause and did not | Court: Employer proved misconduct; claimant failed to show good cause; disqualification affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452 (Pa. 1997) (definition of willful misconduct)
- Glenn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 928 A.2d 1169 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (one disqualifying reason suffices)
- Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 A.3d 643 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (willful misconduct framework)
- Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2 A.3d 667 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (Board credibility findings entitled to deference)
- Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (substantial evidence standard for Board findings)