Yost v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
42 A.3d 1158
| Pa. Commw. Ct. | 2012Background
- Claimant Brian E. Yost, a former Hanover Borough police officer, was terminated for excessive force in the Nov. 1, 2010 incident.
- The employer had a Use of Force Policy adopted in 2008 and training in 2008–2009.
- During the arrest, the claimant initially deployed the Taser accidentally, then intentionally deployed it again, and later struck the handcuffed suspect with a flashlight.
- The suspect was handcuffed and on the ground when the claimant punched him three times, leading to termination for willful misconduct.
- The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits under § 402(e); the Board found willful misconduct based on the evidence.
- Claimant challenged the decision, arguing due process defects, lack of substantial evidence, and failure to consider mitigating factors.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the termination for willful misconduct supported by substantial evidence? | Yost argues the finding is not supported by substantial evidence. | Board contends the use of force violated policy and was willful misconduct. | Yes; the Board's willful misconduct finding is supported by substantial evidence. |
| Did due process concerns (Loudermill) invalidate unemployment benefits? | Yost claims lack of written notice violated due process before termination. | WBR argues unemployment scheme not dependent on Loudermill process. | No; due process concerns do not control unemployment compensation eligibility. |
| Can hearsay from a supervisor about video observations support the Board's finding? | Whitson's testimony about the video is hearsay and lacks firsthand knowledge. | Testimony is corroborated by claimant's admissions; Board credibility assessment valid. | Yes; testimony corroborated by admissions suffices to support the finding. |
| Was there good cause mitigating the use of force that the Board failed to consider? | Claimant asserts circumstances (size of suspect, danger, darkness) justified force. | Mitigating factors were not raised at the relevant proceedings. | No; court cannot consider unraised mitigating factors. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee Hosp. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 161 Pa. Cmwlth. 464 (1994) (substantial evidence standard and scope of review)
- Frick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 31 Pa.Cmwlth. 198 (1977) (definition of willful misconduct)
- City of Beaver Falls v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 65 Pa.Cmwlth. 14 (1982) (employer burden to prove rule and its violation)
- Peak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 509 Pa. 267 (1985) (burden shifting framework for willful misconduct)
- Walker v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 27 Pa. Cmwlth. 522 (1976) (admissibility of unobjected hearsay corroborated by other evidence)
- Wright, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v., 21 Pa.Cmwlth. 637 (1975) (board credibility and conclusive findings standard)
- Grever v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 989 A.2d 400 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2010) (consideration of mitigating factors in willful misconduct cases)
- Hammock v. The State, 311 Ga.App. 344 (2011) (surveillance video evidence and non-hearsay observations)