Vital Support Home Health Care Agency, Inc. v. UCBR, 1598 C.D. 2016

Background

Claimant worked as a home‑health aide for Employer under an at‑will Employment Agreement and signed an Employee Conduct Policy that prohibited falsification and required accurate time/visit records and prompt notification of schedule problems.
Claimant’s father was hospitalized Oct. 31–Nov. 3, 2015; Claimant submitted pre‑signed weekly visit notes and time sheets listing her usual hours and was paid for the hospitalized days without correcting the entries.
On April 14, 2016 Claimant was nearly two hours late for a 12–4 p.m. shift for a new client; she contacted the client’s contact but not the office, and during an office call she cursed at and hung up on the office manager.
Employer investigated, concluded Claimant falsified time records and behaved unprofessionally, and mailed a letter terminating her for policy violations, falsification, and poor attitude.
A Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) awarded Claimant UC benefits; Employer appealed to the Commonwealth Court.
The Commonwealth Court (majority) reversed the UCBR, holding Claimant committed willful misconduct and is ineligible for UC benefits; one judge dissented.

Issues

Issue	Employer's Argument	Claimant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant’s submission of inaccurate/falsified time sheets constitutes willful misconduct disqualifying her from UC	Employer: Claimant knowingly submitted false/inaccurate time sheets in violation of explicit policy, demonstrating intentional disregard of employer’s interests	Claimant: Any submission was negligent or explained by prior messages to Employer about her father’s hospitalization; she lacked intent to defraud	Court: Held willful misconduct—false/inaccurate time sheets and failure to correct them violated policy and showed intentional disregard, so disqualifying
Whether April 14, 2016 tardiness and profane, abusive conduct constitute willful misconduct	Employer: Nearly two‑hour tardiness, profanity, hanging up on supervisor and poor attitude breached expectations and justified discharge	Claimant: She notified client (standard practice), was provoked by being told she was fired, and the Board credited her credibility on timing of outburst	Court: Held willful misconduct—tardiness plus profane, insubordinate behavior in presence of a client evidenced disregard of employer standards and supported disqualification

Key Cases Cited

Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (definition and elements of willful misconduct under UC law)
Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employee bears burden to show good cause once employer proves misconduct)
Scott v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 105 A.3d 839 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (question whether conduct is willful misconduct is one of law for the court)
Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (standard for substantial evidence and deference to Board fact‑finding)
Myers v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 625 A.2d 622 (Pa. 1993) (negligence alone is insufficient; misconduct must be intentional or deliberate)
Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (consider all circumstances, including reasons for noncompliance, in willful misconduct analysis)
Smith v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 411 A.2d 280 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980) (knowing falsehoods to employer constitute willful misconduct)
Brown v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 49 A.3d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (abusive or vulgar language to a superior can be willful misconduct)
Leone v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 885 A.2d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (insubordinate conduct in presence of clients evidences disregard for employer standards)
Fritz v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 446 A.2d 330 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (employer may expect punctual attendance and timely notice of inability to work)