Lancaster
EMS Assn. v. UCBR – June 4, 2015 – unreported memorandum opinion
Board
decision in favor of claimant affirmed. Employer appeal dismissed
silence as
admission
“Silence is considered an admission, only when the
circumstances are such that one ought to speak and does not.” McIntyre v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 687 A.2d 416, 418 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). We
define these circumstances in the context of the events surrounding discharge,
such as when the person presenting the information is a supervisor with an
ability to terminate an employee, and the employee refused to deny the
accusation. Id. We declined to find an admission by silence when a
claimant is testifying at a UC hearing. See Carson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of
Review, 711 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). This Court holds the law on
implied admissions does not lessen an employer’s burden of proof in a willful misconduct
case. Id.; see also Snyder v. Unemployment
Comp. Bd. of Review (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 104 C.D. 2013, filed August 27, 2013)
(unreported), 2013 WL 4530950, *5 (distinguishing claimant’s statement in UC
hearing with statement to employer at the time she was confronted with
misconduct). We reasoned “it is not appropriate to require a claimant to deny
uncorroborated, hearsay allegations raised by an employer at a hearing,
particularly when the burden of proof lies with [the] employer.” Carson, 711
A.2d at 584; Snyder 2013 WL 4530950, *5 (holding employer is required to
“present independent, competent testimony corroborating an accusation of
misconduct before the Court may make an adverse inference from a claimant’s
silence.”).
___________________
If the case is not recent, the link in this posting may not
work. In that case, search for the case by name and date on Westlaw,
Lexis, Google Scholar, or the court website http://www.pacourts.us/courts/supreme-court/court-opinions/
