75 Pa. Commw. 633 | Pa. Commw. Ct. | 1983
Opinion by
Abraham Haigler (Claimant) has brought this appeal from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying him benefits on the basis of willful misconduct.
The law
There is in this case no question regarding the proper reporting of Claimant’s absence.- However, the Board, acting in its role as factfinder,
Order
Tbe order of tbe Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Decision Number B-202065, dated December 23,1981, is hereby affirmed.
Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802 (e).
The question of whether the behavior for which a claimant was discharged constitutes willful misconduct is a question of law subject to review by this Count. E.g., Northeastern Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 64 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. 332, 439 A.2d 1337 (1982).
See Glenn v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Pa. Commonwealht Ct. , 455 A.2d 293 (1983).
Claimant, in the letter which he submitted to this Court as his pro se brief, has asserted that Employer treated him, a black male, differently, with regard to accepting his excuse of an ill child, from other white employees. While the law does not permit racially disparate discipline to form the basis for a denial of unemployment compensation benefits, Woodson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 461 Pa. 439, 336 A.2d 867 (1975), Claimant did not raise that issue below and therefore may not raise it for the first time here. Section 703(a) of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C. S. §703(a).