employment - criminal conviction - collateral consequences - harm to reputation

Commonwealth v. Coniker – Pa. Super. – 2-15-23 – precedential

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Superior/out/J-A29038-22o%20-%20105435515212837900.pdf?cb=1

 

 

Held: Because criminal conviction could have collateral consequences – such as damage to his reputation --  the fact that defendant had completed his sentence did not render the case moot. Defendant permitted to appeal.

 

From the opinion:

A case becomes moot when there is no longer an actual case or controversy to be resolved. In the Interest of Y.W.-B., 265 A.3d 602, 612  n.8 (Pa. 2021); e.g., Commonwealth v. Beaudoin, 182 A.3d 1009, 1010 (dismissing appeal as moot based on defendant’s death, a discretionary decision by this Court). 

However, the collateral consequences doctrine recognizes that a person with a criminal conviction may face legal consequences beyond serving the sentence imposed for the conviction. Commonwealth v. Markley, 501 A.2d 1137, 1141–42 (Pa. Super. 1985) (citing Sibron v. New York, 392 U.S. 40 (1968)). Notably, adverse consequences are presumed; “a criminal case is moot only if it is shown that there is no possibility that any collateral legal consequences will be imposed on the basis of the challenged conviction.” Id. at 1141 (quoting Sibron, 392 U.S. at 57). . . . .

He. . .speculated that these convictions could damage his reputation; see Markley, 501 A.2d at 1140, 1141 n.4; see also Pa. Const. Art. 1, § 1 (recognizing an inherent right to reputation). . . .Given the possibility that Coniker’s convictions will damage his reputation, we conclude that he could suffer collateral consequences as a result. As such, we agree with Coniker that the collateral consequences doctrine applies and his cases are not moot. Markey, supra. Therefore, we will address substantive issues. 

 

 

-- 

UC - willful misconduct - absences - failure to report

Rothlein v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 2-24-23 – unreported memorandum opinion**

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1102CD20_2-24-23.pdf?cb=1

 

Held: Claimant disqualified for willful misconduct for failure to report his absences due to illness.

 

From the opinion:

 

The employer bears the burden of proving that the claimant committed willful misconduct. Grand Sport Auto Body v. UCBR., 55 A.3d 186, 190 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc) (citing Docherty v. UCBR., 898 A.2d 1205, 1208 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006)). 

If the employer satisfies this initial hurdle, the burden shifts to the claimant to establish good cause for his or her actions. Id. (citing McKeesport Hosp. v. UCBR, 625 A.2d 112, 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993)). Good cause exists where the claimant’s actions “are justifiable and reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. (quoting Docherty, 898 A.2d at 1208-09). 

Illness is a good cause defense to willful misconduct due to absenteeism. Owens v. UCBR, 748 A.2d 794, 798 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citing McKeesport Hosp., 625 A.2d at 114). 

A claimant’s illness will not establish good cause, however, where the claimant fails to properly report his or her absences. See Schlappich v. UCBR., 485 A.2d 855, 857 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1984) (citing Manatawny Manor v. UCBR, 401 A.2d 424 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979)); Gelles v. UCBR, 452 A.2d 91, 92 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982) (citing Gochenauer v. UCBR., 429 A.2d 1246, 1248 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981)).

In this matter, . . .although Claimant may have missed work due to illness, Employer’s documentation reveals that he failed to demonstrate good cause, because he did not report many of his absences.10 See Schlappich, 485 A.2d at 857 (citing Manatawny Manor, 401 A.2d 424). 

+++++++

 

 

** An unreported decision of the Commonwealth Court can be cited “for its persuasive value, but not as binding precedent” under 210 Pa. Code 69.414 (citing judicial opinions in filings).