Moore v. UCBR – Cmwlth –
Court – April 8, 2013 – unreported memorandum decision
Claimant’s
action of omitting the details of her lengthy criminal history, despite
Employer’s emphasis of the importance of honesty on her job application, was
material to Claimant’s employment, we affirm the Board’s Order. When filling out her employment application,
Claimant indicated that she had a criminal record, but listed only one
conviction for conspiracy. In fact, Claimant’s six-page criminal history
included numerous convictions, including forgery and identity theft. After
performing a criminal background check that revealed numerous convictions,
Employer discharged Claimant on September 2, 2011
This
Court has consistently held that “[UC] benefits are properly denied when a
claimant’s discharge stems from a false or incomplete statement on an
employment-related application document if the misrepresentation is knowing and
material to the employee’s qualifications for the job at issue.” Sill-Hopkins
v. Commonwealth, 563 A.2d 1288, 1290 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (holding that
claimant’s misrepresentation regarding her availability to sell securities was
material because a “significant nexus” existed between the misrepresentation
and the ability to perform the job at issue). The materiality of a
misrepresentation is determined based on “the factual matrix present in each
case.” Id. (citing Albater v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 423
A.2d 9, 11 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1980)). “We must
look at the circumstances surrounding each case in order to determine whether
information concealed from the employer is material to the employment.”
Albater, 423 A.2d at 11. Thus, this Court looked both to the nature of the job
at issue and also to the nature of the criminal record concealed.
In this
case, it appears that Claimant’s position was not one requiring a great deal of
trust or an unblemished criminal record. Employer’s witness credibly testified that
Employer would have hired Claimant despite her criminal record. .. However, the
information Claimant concealed was not merely an arrest, but a lengthy history
of convictions for crimes involving dishonesty, such as forgery and identity
theft. Moreover, at issue in this case is not merely Claimant’s criminal
history, but her active concealment of this history despite Employer’s
instruction to Claimant that it was important that she be honest on her
application.
Dishonesty
in connection with one’s employment constitutes a disregard of expected
standards of behavior where the employee’s actions are affirmatively deceptive.
DeRiggi v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 856 A.2d 253, 256-57 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2004). Contrary to Claimant’s arguments, Claimant “was well aware of
the importance of accuracy” and truthfulness to Employer. Simonds v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 535 A.2d 742, 744 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1988). Employer’s witness testified, “I tell everyone, just be truthful, okay,
just be truthful on your application.”
In
Claimant’s testimony, she stated, “I knew that when you typed in my
name, everything was going to come up.” (Hr’g Tr. at 11 (emphasis added).)
Nonetheless, Claimant deliberately omitted5 the details of her criminal
history, despite knowing that Employer intended to verify the truthfulness of
Claimant’s application. Employer may not have cared about Claimant’s past
criminal history when making its employment decision, which is consistent with
the “deeply ingrained public policy of this State to avoid unwarranted
stigmatization of and unreasonable restrictions upon former offenders.”
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Dixon, 365 A.2d 668, 669 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1976). However, Employer emphasized the importance of truthfulness
during the application process to its applicants. Given the nature and length
of Claimant’s criminal history and her active concealment thereof, despite Employer’s emphasis
regarding the importance of honesty on the job application, we hold that the
Board did not err in finding that Claimant’s deception was material to her
employment.
________________
The opinion, though
not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but not as binding
precedent." 210
Pa. Code § 67.55. Citing Judicial
Opinions.
