Sch. Dist. of Phila. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review
| Decision Date | 18 April 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 1831 C.D. 2012,1831 C.D. 2012 |
| Parties | The School District of Philadelphia, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent |
| Court | Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court |
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
The School District of Philadelphia (Employer) petitions this Court for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that held that Bruce M. Benson (Claimant) is not ineligible to receive unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law.1 We affirm.
Claimant was employed by Employer as a middle school Assistant Principal from February 6, 2003 through January 23, 2012. (Record Item (R. Item) 24, Board Decision and Order, Findings of Fact (Board F.F.) ¶1, Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 124a; R. Item 14, Hearing Transcript (H.T.) at 3-4, 7 & Ex. E-1,R.R. at 158a-159a, 162a, 242a.) In that nearly nine-year employment, Claimant's work was satisfactory and no claim of any misconduct was made against Claimant. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 13 & Employer Ex. 3, Ex. E-1, R.R. at 168a, 239a, 242a-244a.)
Before he was hired by Employer, Claimant had been a high school teacher in New Jersey. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 7-8, 19, R.R. at 162a-163a, 174a.) During that prior employment, Claimant was accused of touching a student in a sexual manner and was dismissed based on that accusation. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶3, R.R. at 124a; R. Item 14, H.T. at 4, 7, 19, R.R. at 159a, 162a, 174a.) At the time Claimant was hired by Employer, those charges were in litigation and Claimant advised Employer of the accusation and litigation. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 7-11, 15, 18-20, R.R. at 162a-166a, 170a, 173a-175a.) Claimant was not arrested or convicted of any crime with respect to the incidents, and the Pennsylvania child abuse clearance when Employer hired Claimant showed no record of any indicated or founded report of child abuse. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 7, 11, 15, R.R. at 162a, 166a, 170a.) In 2006, after Claimant was working for Employer, the New Jersey Department of Education State Board of Examiners (the New Jersey Examiners) issued an Order (the New Jersey Revocation Order) revoking Claimant's New Jersey teaching certificate based on the 2000 accusation of inappropriate conduct in his New Jersey employment. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶4, R.R. at 124a; R. Item 14, H.T. at 5-7 & Employer Ex. 1, R.R. at 160a-162a, 230a-236a.) Employer had no policy requiring employees to notify it of revocation of licenses in other states. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 4, 10, R.R. at 159a, 165a.)
In November 2011, Employer became aware of the 2006 revocation of the Claimant's New Jersey teaching certificate. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶5, R.R.at 125a; R. Item 14, H.T. at 4-6, R.R. at 159a-161a.) Claimant was questioned by Employer, and denied the allegations of misconduct made against him in his New Jersey employment. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶6, R.R. at 125a; R. Item 14, Employer Ex. 3, R.R. at 239a.) On February 7, 2012, Employer discharged Claimant because New Jersey had revoked his teaching certificate for inappropriate conduct with students. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶¶7-8, R.R. at 125a; R. Item 14, H.T. at 4, 6-7 & Employer Ex. 3, R.R. at 159a, 161a-162a, 238a-241a.)
Claimant filed for unemployment benefits and the Unemployment Compensation Service Center found Claimant eligible because Employer had not shown that Claimant was discharged for willful misconduct. (R. Item 6, Service Center Notice of Determination, R.R. at 199a.) Employer appealed, and the Referee conducted a hearing at which Claimant and Employer's Unemployment Specialist testified.
At the hearing, Employer admitted that the revocation of Claimant's New Jersey teaching certificate itself was not a ground for discharge and that the sole reason for Claimant's discharge was the underlying conduct on which the revocation was based. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 4, R.R. at 159a.) Employer's witness had no knowledge of whether Claimant had committed the inappropriate conduct for which it discharged him. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 5, R.R. at 160a.) Claimant specifically denied that the inappropriate conduct had occurred. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 11, 20-21, R.R. at 166a, 175a-176a.) The only evidence that Claimant had inappropriately touched any student was the New Jersey Revocation Order. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 5-6 & Employer Ex. 1, R.R. at 160a-161a, 230a-236a.) Claimant's counsel did not object to the admission of the New Jersey Revocation Order. (R. Item 14, H.T. at 5-6, R.R. at 160a-161a.)
The New Jersey Revocation Order does not make any factual determinations as to whether the underlying conduct occurred. (R. Item 14, Employer Ex. 1, R.R. at 234a-235a.) It states that the New Jersey Examiners had no address for Claimant and were unsuccessful in notifying him of the proceeding. (R. Item 14, Employer Ex. 1, R.R. at 234a.) While the document recites the accusations and earlier ruling of an Administrative Law Judge (ALJ), the New Jersey Examiners "ORDERED that the charges ... are deemed admitted for the purpose of this proceeding" based on Claimant's failure to respond and addressed only whether the conduct that they had deemed admitted was grounds for revocation of Claimant's teaching certificate. (R. Item 14, Employer Ex. 1, R.R. at 234a-235a.) Employer did not introduce in evidence the ALJ decision or hearing transcript or any other administrative or court decision finding that Claimant committed the underlying conduct or setting forth any facts supporting the accusations of misconduct.
On June 13, 2012, the Referee issued a decision affirming the Service Center's determination. The Referee found that Employer had failed to present any non-hearsay evidence that Claimant had committed the misconduct for which he was discharged. (R. Item 15, Referee's Decision and Order at 2, R.R. at 79a.) The Referee, accordingly, held that Claimant was eligible for benefits because Employer had not met its burden of proving that Claimant had committed willful misconduct. (R. Item 15, Referee's Decision and Order at 2, R.R. at 79a.)
Employer appealed the Referee's decision to the Board. While that appeal was pending, in mid-July 2012, Employer received notification that Claimant had surrendered his Pennsylvania teaching certificate in a pending Pennsylvania Department of Education proceeding that had arisen out of the NewJersey Revocation Order. (R. Item 25, Employer Request for Reconsideration & Ex. 3 thereto, R.R. at 75a, 86a.) Although Employer knew of this information several weeks before it filed its brief in support of its appeal with the Board on August 10, 2012, Employer did not raise the surrender of Claimant's teaching certificate in that brief. (R. Item 23, Brief in Support of Employer's Appeal, R.R. at 134a-144a.)
The Board, on August 27, 2012, affirmed the Referee's decision granting benefits. (R. Item 24, Board Decision and Order, R.R. at 124a-127a.) The Board determined that Employer discharged Claimant solely because of the New Jersey findings that Claimant committed improper conduct with students. (R. Item 24, Board F.F. ¶8 & Decision and Order at 2, R.R. at 125a.) The Board found credible Claimant's testimony that he did not commit those acts. (R. Item 24, Board Decision and Order, R.R. at 126a.) The Board also held that the New Jersey Revocation Order was not competent evidence that Claimant had committed misconduct because it was hearsay and there was no evidence that corroborated its statements concerning Claimant's conduct. (R. Item 24, Board Decision and Order, R.R. at 126a.) Because Claimant's testimony denying the misconduct was credible and Employer introduced no evidence that Claimant committed the acts for which he was discharged other than the New Jersey Revocation Order, the Board found that Employer failed to satisfy its burden of proving that Claimant committed willful misconduct. (R. Item 24, Board Decision and Order, R.R. at 126a.)
On September 11, 2012, Employer filed a request for reconsideration with the Board, raising for the first time Claimant's surrender of his Pennsylvania teaching certificate and requesting that the record be reopened. (R. Item 25,Employer Request for Reconsideration, R.R. at 72a-76a.) On September 26, 2012, while its request for reconsideration was pending, Employer timely filed a petition for review appealing the Board's order to this Court.2 On October 15, 2012, the Board denied Employer's request for reconsideration. (R. Item 28, Board Denial of Reconsideration, R.R. at 4-1a.)
In unemployment compensation cases, the burden of proving willful misconduct is on the employer. Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 550 Pa. 115, 123, 703 A.2d 452, 456 (1997); Lindsay v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 789 A.2d 385, 389 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001); Blue Mountain Area School District v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 503 A.2d 1073, 1076 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). Willful misconduct is conduct by an employee that evidences wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interests, deliberate violation of the employer's rules, disregard of standards of behavior that an employer can rightfully expect from an employee, or negligence that indicates an intentional disregard for the employer's interests or the employee's duties or obligations. Temple University v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 565 Pa. 178, 182, 772 A.2d 416, 418 (2001); Caterpillar, Inc., 550 Pa. at 123, 703 A.2d at 456. Whether a claimant's actions constitute willful misconduct is a question of law. Temple University, 565 Pa. at 182 n.1, 772 A.2d at 418 n.1; Caterpillar, Inc., 550 Pa. at 123, 703 A.2d at 456;Ductmate Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).
There is no dispute...
To continue reading
Request your trial