UC - willful misconduct - COVID policy (2-1 decision)

Rivera v. UCBR – 2-20-24 – Cmwlth. Court – reported decision (2-1 decision)

https://www.pacourts.us/assets/opinions/Commonwealth/out/1487CD22_2-20-24.pdf?cb=1

 

Majority:

Claimant did not have good cause for violating an employer policy, which required employees to get vaccinated or self-test weekly, absent medical grounds or a sincerely-held religious belief regarding vaccination and testing. Claimant provided maintenance and service inside the apartments in an 80-unit elderly housing complex.

 

Dissent:

This case presents an example of the concerns that I articulated in my dissent in Brown v. UCBR, 276 A.3d 322, 333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2022), wherein I explained that the citizens of this Commonwealth have a protected common law right to exercise autonomy over their medical treatment and asserting that legal right should not amount to willful misconduct or serve as the basis for denying one unemployment compensation benefits. 

As noted in my dissent in Brown, which I incorporate herein by reference, in Pennsylvania, courts have adopted the common law right to self-determination. Our Supreme Court has recognized this right and that it is the basis for the concept of informed consent. Shinal v. Toms, 162 A.3d 429, 452 (Pa. 2017) (“the right to be free from bodily invasion developed the doctrine of informed consent”). Specifically, and as also noted by the United States (U.S.) Supreme Court, “[n]o right is held more sacred, or is more carefully guarded by the common law, than the right of every individual to the possession and control of his own person, free from all restraint or interference of others unless by clear and unquestionable authority of law.” Union Pacific Railway Co. v. Botsford, 141 U.S. 250, 251 (1891). In Cruzan by Cruzan v. Director, Missouri Department of Health, 497 U.S. 261, 269 (1990), then-Chief Justice Rehnquist stated that “[e]very human being of adult years and sound mind has a right to determine what shall be done with his own body.” 

 

 

 

 

 

UC - willful misconduct - violation of federally-mandated COVID policy

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.