County of Allegheny v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – May31, 2019
Claimant convicted of off-duty DUI was
not disqualified under sec. 3 (off-duty
misconduct) or sec. 402(e)(job-related willful misconduct), even
where Employer code of conduct authorized termination of employment for
criminal conviction, even when off-duty or unrelated to employment.
From the opinion –
Willful
misconduct -402(e) - Employer argued
that Claimant’s off-duty DUI was willful misconduct under sec.402(e), because
it violated the employer code of conduct. The court rejected this argument, noting that a worker is not ineligible for unemployment compensation unless
his discharge is for willful misconduct connected with this work.[”] Palladino v. UCBR, 81 A.3d at 1103. The
fact that Claimant could be discharged for unlawful conduct does not make the
misconduct work-connected for purposes of Section 402(e). See Palladino, 81 A.3d at 1103 (citing Robinson, 546 A.2d at 753). “Off-duty misconduct will not support a finding of
willful misconduct under Section 402(e) unless it extends to performance on the
job[.]” Palladino, 81
A.3d at 1101 (quoting Burger, 801 A.2d at 491) (brackets omitted); see also Webb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 670 A.2d 1212, 1216 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996) There is a critical distinction between the employer’s right to
terminate employment and the state’s right to deny unemployment benefits.’ ” Id.
(quoting Blake v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, ... 425 A.2d 43, 45 ( [Pa. Cmwlth.] 1981).
Sec.3
–off-duty misconduct – The Court
affirmed the Board holding that Claimant was not ineligible under sec. 3. Under Section 3 of the Law, the employer bears the burden to prove
“(1) that the claimant’s conduct was contrary to acceptable standards of
behavior and (2) that the claimant’s unacceptable conduct directly affects or
reflects upon the claimant’s ability to perform his assigned duties.” Palladino, 81 A.3d at 1101 (quoting Frazier, 833 A.2d at 1184–85). Both prongs of the test must be satisfied. Gillins, 633 A.2d at 1154. Notably, Employer does not claim that the
unacceptable conduct, i.e., the criminal DUI conviction, affected
Claimant’s ability to perform his job duties as a project coordinator7 and does not challenge the Board’s
determination that the conviction did not affect Claimant’s ability to perform
his job. As such, because Employer did not establish one of the two necessary
prongs, ineligibility for benefits under Section 3 cannot be established.
