Unemployment Compensation: Overcoming "Willful Misconduct"

By: Zainab Manasawala with Contributions by Jamie C. Ray, Esq.

             Recently, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania demonstrated the workings of the legal tool, good cause, in granting unemployment compensation benefits.  In Docherty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review (UCBR), a phlebotomist employed by a hospital was discharged for willful misconduct in disclosing confidential patient information within earshot of another patient and her visitor.  898 A.2d 1205 (Pa. Commw. 2006).  The court, however, found good cause for the violation of the employer’s confidentiality policy by examining the attendant circumstances.  The parents of the patient, asked the employee why he was drawing blood from their child; at the time, another visitor was present with her child, also a patient in the same room.  The claimant responded that the blood would be used for a rapid HIV and hepatitis test within earshot of the visitor. 

            In its analysis, the court highlighted several circumstances surrounding the violation that justified the employee’s action: the employer’s practice of 1) placing patients in shared rooms; 2) requiring its employees to provide medical treatment in these rooms; 3) allowing visitors during treatment periods; and 4) failing to provide alternative locations for its employees to discuss sensitive patient information.  Consequently, the court concluded that the employer had no reasonable expectation of keeping all patient information confidential.  Thus, Docherty signifies the importance of the surrounding circumstances in determining if an employee has a good cause defense to willful misconduct.

            Pennsylvania’s Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 801, is intended to provide unemployed individuals with some economic security after being discharged from employment through no fault of their own.  When former employees apply for unemployment compensation benefits, however, they are often denied on the grounds of committing willful misconduct.  Under 43 P.S. § 802(e), employees are ineligible for compensation for any week in which their unemployment results from a discharge for willful misconduct related to their work.  Willful misconduct is commonly defined by the courts as:

a) wanton or willful disregard for an employer's interests; b) deliberate violation of an employer's rules; c) disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee; or d) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer's interest or an employee's duties or obligations.  County of Luzerne v. UCBR, 611 A.2d 1335, 1337 (1992).  

The employer has the initial burden of establishing willful misconduct to deny benefits to an employee.  To meet this burden, the employer must demonstrate the existence of a rule or policy, the reasonableness of the rule, and the employee’s violation of the rule.  Conemaugh Mem'l. Med. Ctr. v. UCBR, 814 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Commw. 2003). Various acts can constitute willful misconduct, including absenteeism, drug use, and offensive language. 

            Once the employer has established willful misconduct, the burden then shifts to the claimant to establish good cause for his or her actions to overcome a finding of willful misconduct.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court in Frumento v. UCBR held that a court must consider the employee's reason for non-compliance, as well as “the reasonableness of the [employer’s] request in light of all of the circumstances” to find good cause.  351 A.2d 631 (Pa. 1976).  Thus, a claimant’s actions that are justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances are not willful misconduct.  To show good cause, then, the former employee can argue that even if the employer’s rule or policy was reasonable, the rule as applied to the claimant’s circumstances was unreasonable. 

            As in Docherty, numerous cases granting benefits to claimants based upon a finding of good cause have emphasized the circumstances supporting the reasonableness of the claimants’ actions.  For example, in Grieb v. UCBR, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court found that the employee’s act of bringing weapons onto school property was a “one-time, inadvertent violation” of the employer’s policy not rising to the level of willful misconduct.  827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003).  The employee had been called to school early morning unexpectedly to substitute teach; at the time, however, she was in the process of moving and had forgotten about three unloaded shotguns in her car.  Thus, based on the circumstances, the Court found that claimant did not deliberately violate the employer’s policy and granted benefits. 

            Furthermore, in Navickas v. UCBR, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court underscored the need to consider the totality of circumstances governing a particular occupation or workplace; this enables identifying reasonable employer expectations and then defining what amounts to willful misconduct in disregarding them. Calling this a “flexible approach to determining willful misconduct,” the Court stressed the myriad working conditions and rules that make the conduct constituting willful misconduct vary depending upon an employee's specific occupation.

            In accordance with Navickas’ “flexible approach,” the Commonwealth Court in Docherty examined the specific circumstances surrounding the employee’s workplace and his non-compliance.  As a result, the court found good cause, illustrating how the presence of justifying circumstances can overcome a finding of willful misconduct.

            One possible challenge to an employer’s assertion of a rule or policy that the employee violated is the argument that such a policy never existed or that the employee was never informed of the policy.  See Tongel v. UCBR, 501 A.2d 716 (Pa. Commw. 1985) (granting employee benefits because she was never informed of rule that led to her discharge).  In Diversified Care Mgmt. LLC v. UCBR, for example, the employer demoted claimant for using the company phone to discuss her son’s criminal problems.  885 A.2d 130 (Pa. Commw. 2005).  Finding her demotion unjustified, claimant quit her job and applied for unemployment compensation.  Because the court determined that the employer had no policy on the use of its company phone, it granted benefits to claimant.  Even in the absence of an explicit policy, however, claimants can still be denied benefits if their actions contravened reasonable standards of behavior that the employer was entitled to expect.  For instance, the court in Pettyjohn v. UCBR, held that claimant’s act of using the internet for personal purposes during work hours was contrary to reasonable standards of employee behavior; thus, her actions constituted willful misconduct regardless of whether any rule explicitly prohibited such conduct.  863 A.2d 162 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 2004).