Klampfer
v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – February 1, 2018
Held: Claimant not guilty of willful misconduct for
violating an employer rule concerning absences, where
- she recently had heart surgery
- employer granted her FMLA leave
- she called off work four (4) times
within 90 days of her return to work, for legitimate health reasons, in
violation of employer rule
- employer rule did not exempt
legit. health reasons from its rule
- claimant was not able to get
doctor’s note until the very day that employer terminated her
No willful
misconduct
An
employer seeking to prove willful misconduct by a policy violation must
demonstrate the existence of the policy, its reasonableness, and its violation.
Guthrie v. UCBR, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999). “The employer must also show
that the employee intentionally or deliberately violated the work rule.”
Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. UCBR, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016)
(emphasis added). This Court “must determine if the work rule is reasonable in
light of all the circumstances and whether [a claimant] had good cause to
violate the work rule.” Caterpillar, Inc. v. UCBR, 703 A.2d 452, 459 (Pa.
1997).
It
is “undisputed here that claimant’s absences ere due to illness.” “[T]he law is clear that absence due to
illness is not willful misconduct.” Green v. UCBR, 433 A.2d 587, 589 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1981) (reversing Board determination that claimant’s seven absences
constituted willful misconduct when some absences related to sickness); see
Tritex Sportwear, Inc. v. UCBR, 315 A.2d 322 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1974). When the
violation of an employer’s absence policy is grounds for termination, and the
policy makes no distinction between absences for illness and absences for other
reasons, we do not discern willful misconduct based on the policy violation
alone. Green.
Here,
as in Green, the Court did not
discern any element of “willfulness in Claimant’s violation of the Policy when
she was absent four times within 90 days as a result of her illness. When a
claimant violates a policy because of her illness, we do not ascribe deliberate
disregard to her violation. See Phila. Parking Auth. v. UCBR, 1 A.3d 965 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2010) (inadvertent violation of employer’s rule does not constitute
willful misconduct). While such absences may be a reason for discharge, they are
not a reason for a denial of UC benefits. Runkle v. UCBR, 521 A.2d 530 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1987); Green. That Manager
warned Claimant about potential discipline as a result of her absences without
documentation does not alter this conclusion.
In
addition, a claimant with a documented illness has good cause for her absences.
See, e.g., Phila. Parking Auth., 1
A.3d at 968 (“Physical illness can constitute good cause for a claimant’s
noncompliance with an employer’s directive.”).
Moreover, Claimant’s
uncontradicted testimony is sufficient evidence to establish good cause.
Roberts v. UCBR, 977 A.2d 12 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009) (reversing Board; holding
claimant had good cause for rule violation under the circumstances based on
claimant’s uncontradicted testimony). A claimant is not required to produce
medical testimony to substantiate her illness; her own uncontradicted testimony
is competent evidence of her illness. Phila.
Parking Auth., 1 A.3d 965
Unreasonable
application of employer rule
A
claimant’s violation of an employer’s sick leave policy may be valid cause for
discharge, but not for a denial of UC benefits. Phila. Parking Auth. v. UCBR (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 609 C.D. 2015, filed
November 17, 2015), 2015 WL 7356313 (unreported) (holding employer unreasonably
applied policy to claimant who had serious health condition). In Philadelphia Parking Authority, the
claimant reached her maximum sick leave under the policy, such that additional
sick days led to discipline. As a result, she requested and received approved
FMLA leave. Nonetheless, the employer discharged her for noncompliance with its
sick leave policy. In concluding the claimant did not commit willful
misconduct, we explained, “apply[ing] its regular policy for employees who have
called in sick, to an employee who has requested, certified, and received leave
under the FMLA is not reasonable.” Id., slip op. at 9, 2015 WL 7356313, *5. The
Policy here permits the discharge of an employee who is ill four times within a
90-day period regardless of the circumstances. Claimant is recovering from
open-heart surgery. Claimant was absent because of illness four times in the two
weeks following her medical leave. In light of these circumstances, Employer
did not prove Claimant’s absences rose to the level of willful misconduct.
Runkle; Green.
And
because Claimant’s absences due to illness do not show a deliberate disregard
for Employer’s interests, the Board erred as a matter of law in determining
that Claimant’s four call offs within 90 days constituted willful misconduct.
