Umedman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
2012 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 271
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Umedman was social director at New Hope Adult Day Care, LLC (Employer) from Aug 1, 2005 to May 4, 2011 and owned 25% of Employer's stock.
- She held a nontransferable Food Establishment Personnel Food Safety Certificate publicly displayed at Employer's premises.
- On Feb 23, 2011 she left work to assist a Deli by presenting her certificate to a health inspector due to the Deli's expired license.
- Employer's program director found her at the Deli and formal action was initiated; her actions jeopardized Employer's license and operations.
- She was discharged May 4, 2011 for gross misconduct; UC benefits were denied and appealed through a Referee who favored UC benefits, then the UCBR reversed and denied benefits.
- The issues on appeal include substantial evidence support for willful misconduct, consideration of an unwritten city policy, the delay between incident and discharge, and potential constitutional rights issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether willful misconduct was supported by substantial evidence | Umedman argues no substantial evidence. | UCBR found conduct violated duties and standards and jeopardized licensing. | Yes; substantial evidence supports willful misconduct. |
| Whether the UCBR erred in not considering the unwritten closure policy | Umedman contends the policy should have been considered. | Policy not part of record; evidence excluded. | Policy not considered; and evidence properly disregarded. |
| Whether the two-month delay bars willful misconduct | Delay between incident and discharge should bar denial. | Delay explained by vacation and ongoing corporate actions; remoteness doctrine not applying. | Delay did not bar willful misconduct. |
| Whether UCBR violated rights by failing to remand for more fact-finding | Constitutional rights violated due to denial of subpoena and need for remand. | Issue raised too late; not preserved; must be waived. | Waived; not reviewable on appeal. |
Key Cases Cited
- Owoc v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 809 A.2d 441 (Pa.Cmwlth.2002) (substantial evidence standard for administrative findings)
- Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 945 A.2d 261 (Pa.Cmwlth.2008) (ultimate fact-finder may resolve credibility conflicts)
- Grigsby v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 447 A.2d 705 (Pa.Cmwlth.1982) (willful misconduct may be based on conscious indifference to duties)
- Tundel v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 404 A.2d 434 (Pa.Cmwlth.1979) (remoteness doctrine; delay in misconduct findings)
- Raimondi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 863 A.2d 1242 (Pa.Cmwlth.2004) (explanation for delay may preserve denial of benefits)
- Grubbs v. Pennsylvania Bd. of Prob. & Parole, 481 A.2d 1391 (Pa.Cmwlth.1984) (record development must occur at agency level; no new evidence on appeal)