Shadowfax
Corp. v. UCBR – Auust 4, 2015 – unreported memorandum decision
The
court remanded the case for findings about the employer’s alleged prior warning
to claimant about her job performance. Claimant was an activities coordinator at a
mental health facility. She was fired
after she forgot to take one of the residents on a field trip, claiming to have
inadvertently/negligently left him behind.
Mere
negligence or inadvertence on its own does not rise to the level of willful
misconduct. Scott v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 A.3d
643, 648 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). Rather, willful misconduct requires “the
additional element of an intentional disregard of the employer’s interests.” Myers
v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 622, 626 n.3 (Pa.
1993). However, repeated conduct of an employee in the face of multiple
warnings will support a finding of willful misconduct. Scott, 36 A.3d at
648.
The
employer presented evidence that
Claimant had been previously warned concerning issues with her supervision of
individuals under Employer’s care. The
Board capriciously disregards evidence when it “willfully or deliberately
ignore[s] evidence that any reasonable person would have considered to be
important.” Henderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 77
A.3d 699, 710 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). Although the Board is the ultimate fact-finder
when it comes to resolving evidentiary conflicts and making credibility
determinations, the Board may not willfully ignore evidence when making
credibility determinations. Id. Here, the referee’s findings of fact,
which the Board adopted and incorporated, make no mention of the repeated
warnings. Although the referee found Claimant’s testimony credible that she
inadvertently left the resident at Employer’s facility, neither the Board nor
the referee expressly considered Claimant’s previous warnings regarding
supervisory concerns in analyzing whether her actions constituted willful
misconduct.
In
unemployment cases, the Board is the ultimate fact-finder empowered to make all
determinations as to witness credibility and evidentiary weight. Peak v.
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1382, 1385 (Pa. 1985). However, the
Board in this case did not make any findings or determinations based on
Claimant’s prior received warnings and did not make any credibility
determinations concerning Employer’s witnesses. As reflected in Scott,
supra, these findings are necessary to a determination of whether Claimant’s
actions rise to the level of willful misconduct. We reiterate that it is the Board’s duty and
functional purpose to assign credibility and weight determinations to the
evidence presented. See Wardlow v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review,
387 A.2d 1356, 1357 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1978). The Board’s failure to do so impedes
our ability to conduct meaningful appellate review and requires that the case
be remanded for such findings.
___________________
The
opinion, though not reported, may be cited "for its persuasive value, but
not as binding precedent." 210 Pa. Code 69.414.
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/
