IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher Wyatt

, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review

, : No. 2 12 C .D. 201 5 Respondent : Submitted : August 14, 2015

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI

, President Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT , Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY , Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

JUDGE COVEY FILED: September 22, 2015

Christopher Wyatt (Claimant) petitions this Court, pro se, for review of

the Un employment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) December 10,

2014 order affirming the Referee’s decision finding Claimant ineligible for UC

benefits under Section 402 (e) of the UC Law (Law). 1 Claimant presents three issues

for this Court’s review: ( 1) whether the UCBR erred in finding Douglasville

Gymnastics and C heerleading ’ s (Employer) P resident Paige Etheridge (Etheridge)

credible; (2) whether cell ular tele phone (cellphone) photo graph s were substantial

evidence to support finding that Claimant sle pt during working hours; and (3)

whether the UCBR can deny Claimant UC benefits when he was only a probationary

employee. After review, we affirm.

C laimant was employed by Employer as a full

- time gymnastics team and

class coach from May 27, 2014 until Ju ly 21, 2014. On July 17, 2014, Etheridge was

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex.Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as ame nded , 43 P.S. §

802(e) (relating to discharge for willful misconduct).2

notified that C laimant had been sleeping in a waiting room while he was on duty.

Etheridge was out of town and returned to work on July 21, 2014. On July 21, 2014,

Etheridge began an investigation as to wheth er C laimant had been sleeping.

Etheridge observed C laimant sitting on a mat and talking on his cellphone from 10:45

a.m. to 11:45 a.m. when he was supposed to be spotting the uneven bars for a group

of girls

. On July 21, 2014, Employer discharged C laiman t for, among other reasons,

not performing his required job duties

.

Claimant applied for UC benefits. On August 14, 2014, the Scranton

UC Service Center determined that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits under

Section 402(e) of the Law. Employer appe aled and a Referee hearing was held. On

September 25, 2014, the Referee reversed the UC Service Center’s determination.

Claimant appealed to the UCBR

, which affirmed the Referee’s decision. Claimant

appealed to this Court. 2

Section 402(e) of the Law pro vides that an employee is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when his unemployment is due to discharge from work for willful

misconduct connected to his work. The employer bears the burden of proving willful misconduct in an unemployment

co mpensation case. Willful misconduct has been defined as (1) an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s interest; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules;
(3 ) a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has a right to ex pect of an employee ; or (4) negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or a disregard of the employee’s duties and obligations to the employer.

2 “Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated,

whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by
substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704.” Turgeon v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 64 A.3d 729, 731 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).3

Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 755 A.2d 744, 747

- 48 n.4

( Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citation omitted).

Although Claimant presents three questions for review in his brief’s

“Statement of Questions,” in the “Argument” section of his brief, he only addresses

one issue as follows : “The UCBR should not have used pictures taken by a biased

and prejudiced co

- worker, and should not look to impose punishment on the weaker

appellant, the petitioner.” Claimant Br. at 6, 9 (emphasis omitted). Indeed , that one

sentence is Claimant’s argument in its entirety.

“[W] here issues ar e raised in the statement of questions involved, but not

addressed in the argument section of the brief, courts find waiver. ” In re :

Condemnation by Commonwealth , Dep ’ t of Transp. , 76 A.3d 101 , 106

- 07 n.8 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2013) . Moreover, “ [e] ach part of the argument in a brief must contain the

particular point being treated, followed by such discussion and citation of authorities

as are deemed pertinent. Pa. R.A.P. 2119(a)

. Arguments not properly developed in a

brief will be deemed waived

. ” In re : Condemn ation of Land for S.E. Cent. Bus. Dist.

Redevelopment Area # 1 (405 Madison St

. , City of Chester) , 946 A.2d 1154 , 1156 (Pa.

Cmwlth. 2008)

. “[I]t is not the Court’s role to become [Claimant’s] counsel, and

when [Claimant’s] brief is inadequate to present sp ecific issues for review, the Court

will not consider the merits of the case[.]” Rapid Pallet v. Unemployment Comp. Bd.

of Review , 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (citing Grosskopf v. Workmen’s

Comp. Appeal Bd. (Kuhns Market) 657 A.2d 124 (Pa. Cmwlth . 1995)). Here,

Claimant failed to include his appealed issues in the A rgument section of his b rief

,

and he did not develop the single issue he did include therein. Therefore, Claimant’s

issues are deemed waived , and this Court may not consider them

.

No twithstanding, because the UCBR made its determination exclusively

based on Etheridge’s testimony

, Claimant’s argument pertaining to “pictures” has no

merit . Specifically, the UCBR opined:4 [Employer] discharged [C] laimant for, among other reasons, loafing or non

– activity during work hours. [Etheridge] credibl [y] testified that she observed [C] laimant

on his cellphone sitting on a mat from 10:45 a.m. to 11:45 a.m. on July 21, 2014. [Etheridge] testified that [C] laimant was supposed to [be] spotting the un even bars for a group of girls while he was on his cellphone. The [UCBR] finds

that [C] laimant ’ s use of his cellphone while on duty disregarded the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an employee. [ 3 ]

. . . .

Because the [UCB R] found that [C] laimant committed

willful misconduct for at least one of the reasons why he was discharged, there is no reason to address the other

issues that resulted in [C]laimant’ s termination. A claimant who is discharged for multiple reasons is ine ligible for [UC]

benefits even if one of those reasons is considered willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law.

UCBR Dec. at 2. W e discern no error in the UCBR’s decision

.

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is affirmed.

______ _____________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

3 “[T]he [UCBR] is the ultimate fact

- finder in [UC] matters and is empowered t o resolve all
conflicts in evidence, witness credibility, and weight accorded the evidence.” Ductmate Indus., Inc.

v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review , 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher Wyatt, : Petitioner :

:

v. :

: Unemployment Compensation : Board of Review, : No. 2 1 2 C.D. 201 5 Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22 nd day of September , 201 5

, the Unemployment

Compensation Board of Review’s December 10, 2014 order is affirmed.

___________________________ ANNE E. COVEY, Judge