Waverly Heights, Ltd. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
173 A.3d 1224
Pa. Commw. Ct.2017Background
- Claimant Kathleen Jungclaus was Waverly Heights' VP of Human Resources from 1997 until discharged on September 27, 2016, after a July 24, 2016 tweet: "@realDonaldTrump I am the VP of HR in a comp outside of philly an informal survey of our employees shows 100% AA employees voting Trump!"
- Employer cited its Social Media Policy in the separation paperwork and discharged Claimant for allegedly identifying herself as an employer representative and violating that policy.
- A referee found Claimant committed willful misconduct and denied UC benefits; the UC service center had initially granted benefits.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) found Claimant posted the tweet but concluded she did not "identify herself with" Employer (her account did not link to Employer) and thus did not violate the Social Media Policy; the Board reversed the referee and awarded UC benefits.
- Employer appealed to this Court arguing the tweet was racially charged, showed willful misconduct, violated Employer policies (including Communications Policy), and demonstrated disregard of Employer's interests; the Court reviewed whether the Board's findings were supported by substantial evidence and correct as a matter of law.
Issues
| Issue | Employer's Argument | Claimant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Claimant violated Employer's Social Media Policy by identifying herself with Employer on Twitter | Claimant identified herself (VP of HR), follows Employer's account, and could be linked to Employer; policy therefore applied | Tweet did not identify Employer specifically; account not linked; policy inapplicable | Board and Court held policy did not apply because Claimant did not identify herself as Employer's representative |
| Whether Claimant violated Employer's Communications Policy by linking to Employer's website | Employer argued tweet/online presence linked to Employer and breached the linking prohibition | Claimant did not link to Employer's website; she merely followed Employer's account | Waived at hearing and, on the merits, Employer failed to prove a link existed; claim fails |
| Whether the tweet (and alleged informal survey) constituted willful misconduct under 43 P.S. §802(e) | Tweet was racially charged, showed targeting of African-American staff, created inability to perform HR duties and exposed Employer to litigation | Tweet referred to an "informal survey of our employees" and mere discussion of politics does not establish willful misconduct; AA could mean "Administrative Assistants" | Court held Employer failed to prove wanton/willful disregard or that conduct met willful misconduct standards; benefits allowed |
| Evidentiary/credibility disputes and scope of judicial review of Board findings | Employer urged re-evaluation of facts and credibility to support denial of benefits | Board is ultimate factfinder; credibility determinations govern outcome | Court affirmed Board: its factual findings were supported by substantial evidence and are binding |
Key Cases Cited
- Deal v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 878 A.2d 131 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (Board is ultimate factfinder and arbiter of credibility)
- Bell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 921 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (credibility and evidentiary resolution are for the Board)
- Stockdill v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 368 A.2d 1341 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977) (Board may reject uncontradicted testimony as not credible)
- Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (review limited to whether Board findings are supported by substantial evidence)
- Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 49 A.3d 933 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (whether conduct constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law)
- Adams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 A.3d 76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (employer bears burden to prove discharge was for willful misconduct)
- Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 87 A.3d 1006 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014) (definitions and burden-shifting for willful misconduct and work-rule violations)
- Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 A.3d 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (employer must prove existence, reasonableness, and violation of a work rule)
- Wing v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 436 A.2d 179 (Pa. 1981) (issues not raised during UC proceeding are waived)
- Conlon v. Retirement Board of Allegheny County, 715 A.2d 528 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (at-will employment and employer's broad right to discharge separate from UC eligibility)
- Port Authority of Allegheny County v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 955 A.2d 1070 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (employer's right to discharge is distinct from UC disqualification analysis)