IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Christopher Wyatt, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 212 C.D. 2015

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 Unemployment 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 Cheerleading’s (Employer) President Paige Etheridge (Etheridge)

credible; (2) whether cellular telephone (cellphone) photographs were substantial 

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

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

employee. After review, we affirm.

Claimant was employed by Employer as a full-time gymnastics team and 

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

 

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

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

notified that Claimant 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 whether Claimant had been sleeping. 

Etheridge observed Claimant 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 Claimant 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 appealed 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 provides 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 

compensation 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 expect 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 are 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: Condemnation 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 specific 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 Argument section of his brief, 

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.

Notwithstanding, 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 uneven 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 [UCBR] 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 ineligible for [UC] 

benefits even if one of those reasons is considered willful 

misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law.

UCBR Dec. at 2. We 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 to 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. 212 C.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 22nd day of September, 2015, the Unemployment 

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

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge