UC - willful misconduct - employer proving case through claimant's own testimony

Woodring v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 10-4-22 – reported, precedential decision

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/218CD19_10-4-22.pdf?cb=1

 

Held: Employer satisfied burden of proving claimant’s willful misconduct through the claimant’s own testimony, even though employer did not offer its own witnesses and appeared only through counsel.

 

An employer’s burden of proof may be carried, in whole or in part, by the claimant’s own testimony. Walker v. UCBR., 202 A.3d 896, 902-03 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019) (accepting claimant’s testimony as corroboration of employer’s hearsay evidence); Moore v. UCBR., 578 A.2d 606, 608-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990) (noting that “[e]ven where an employer fails to appear [and has] the burden of proving willful misconduct, benefits may be denied if the employee seeking benefits proves the employer’s case”). 

At the hearing in this matter, Claimant acknowledged the existence of the policy and that he was aware of it. . . .Claimant also admitted that he sent the email disparaging the newly hired HR Director and accusing Employer of not following its rules. . . .  Finally, the letter from Employer terminating Claimant’s employment, which advised Claimant that he was terminated for violating Employer’s email policy, was admitted into evidence without objection. See id. at 3.6 

Based on this substantial evidence, the Board properly found that Claimant had committed willful misconduct and, therefore, was ineligible for unemployment benefits under Section 402€ of the Law. 43 P.S. § 802€; Halloran, 188 A.3d at 597; see also Cambria Cnty. Transit Auth., 201 A.3d at 947. Thus, although Employer was not present, Claimant’s testimony, along with the documentary evidence submitted by the parties, carried Employer’s burden of establishing willful misconduct. See Walker, 202 A.3d at 902-03; Moore, 578 A.2d at 608-09. 

++++++++

 

Editor’s note:  This case is a good example of why a claimant should not appear at a UC hearing involving willful misconduct, except through counsel, where the employer does not have any witnesses and appear only through counsel.

 

UC - late appeal - language issues

Basnet v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 10-19-22 – reported, precedential

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1099CD21_10-19-22.pdf?cb=1

 

Held: Claimant did not sustain her burden of showing non-negligent circumstances for filing late appeal from referee decision, given that she had successfully navigated through the system from the time of the UCSC decision (with the help of a friend) in preparing for the referee hearing.

 

In Lewis v. UCBR 814 A.2d 829 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003),  the claimant described the steps she took to ensure that she responded appropriately to the papers she received from the Department, and ultimately appealed four days late. Here, there was no testimony that Claimant took any steps to ensure that she timely understood the Referee’s decision, from which she ultimately appealed 43 days later. This Court cannot conclude that Claimant has met her burden because “the burden of demonstrating the necessity of nunc pro tunc relief is on the party seeking to file the appeal, and the burden is a heavy one[,]” Harris, 247 A.3d at 1229, and where non-negligent circumstances cause the untimeliness of an appeal, the claimant must “show [the] non-negligent conduct beyond [her] control caused the delay[,]” Hessou, 942 A.2d at 198, and “the appeal must be filed within a short period of time after learning of the untimeliness.” Harris, 247 A.3d at 1229 (quoting Cook, 671 A.2d at 1131). “[Claimant’s] failure to take measures to ascertain the contents of the [Referee’s decision] resulted in her delaying [sic] in filing the appeal until [February 12, 2021]. As a result, it was untimely and properly dismissed by the [UCBR].” Guat Gnoh Ho v. UCBR., 525 A.2d 874, 875-76 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987);11 see also Dull v. UCBR., 955 A.2d 1077, 1080 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (“[The c]laimant was prevented by her own negligence from filing a timely appeal because she neglected to have someone read her mail. Cook does not compel us to reverse the UCBR’s decision in this case.”).