Bowen v. UCBR – Cmwlth. Court – 1-9-24 – reported decision
https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1103CD22_3-4-24.pdf?cb=2
Held: Claimant guilty of willful misconduct for failing to comply with ER’s reasonable vaccine policy – following federal mandate for federal contractors -- which required vaccination or medical or religious exemption. Claimant did not get vaccinated or seek any exemption. Claimant claimed only that her unarticulated personal belief excused her conduct.
An employer must prove the existence of a work rule, the reasonableness of the rule, the claimant’s knowledge of the rule, and the claimant’s subsequent violation of the rule. Pierce-Boyce v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 289 A.3d 130, 135-136. (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022).
“In determining reasonableness, this Court should consider whether application of the rule or policy under the circumstances is fair and just and appropriate to accomplish a legitimate interest of the employer.” Spirnak v. UCBR., 557 A.2d 451, 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989); see also, e.g., Brown v. UCBR., 276 A.3d 322, 328-29 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022) (finding employer’s flu vaccine policy fair and just where it allowed medical or religious exemptions but rejected a form document submitted by the claimant asserting the claimant’s right to not give consent).
Claimant did not show good cause for non-compliance.- Once an employer establishes that an employee committed willful misconduct, the burden shifts to the employee to establish good cause for her actions. Woodring v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 284 A.3d 960, 964 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). “The employee can establish good cause where [her] actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Whether good cause existed for an employee’s actions is evaluated considering all the attendant circumstances. Halloran v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 188 A.3d 592, 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).
Once an employer establishes that an employee committed willful misconduct, the burden shifts to the employee to establish good cause for her actions. Woodring v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 284 A.3d 960, 964 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022). “The employee can establish good cause where [her] actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances.” Id. (internal quotations omitted). Whether good cause existed for an employee’s actions is evaluated considering all the attendant circumstances. Halloran v. UCBR, 188 A.3d 592, 597 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018).
An employee does not commit willful misconduct if her employer’s directive directly threatens the employee’s health or safety. Dougherty v. UCBR., 686 A.2d 53, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). However, a claimant’s subjective beliefs alone do not establish good cause for failing to comply with an employer’s directive. Id. at 55. Here, the claimant had only a subjective belief about the safety and efficacy of the vaccine.
This summary also appears in the PLAN Legal Update, which can be accessed without a password.
