IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LaVonta M. Webb, :

 Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 545 C.D. 2018

Respondent : Submitted: September 28, 2018

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge

HONORABLE CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE FIZZANO CANNON FILED: December 28, 2018

LaVonta M. Webb (Webb) petitions, pro se, for review of the February 

26, 2018 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board),

which affirmed the referee’s denial of benefits based on willful misconduct. Upon 

review, we affirm.

Giant Eagle (Employer) employed Webb as the deli prepared foods 

manager in its store located in Franklin, Pennsylvania. Findings of Fact (F.F.) 1;

Transcript of Testimony (T.T.) 5. Webb supervised the hot foods and deli 

department and her duties included writing food orders, preparing schedules, and 

attending regular meetings with the store manager, Lisa Bain (Bain). F.F. 1; T.T. 8. 

While interviewing an employee for possible termination relating to a food safety 

violation, Bain learned that the employees in Webb’s department were giving 
2

discounts to other employees and family members on hot food items in violation of 

store policy. F.F. 4; T.T. 6-7. The employees in Webb’s department charged other 

employees and their family members a flat rate of $3.99 per pound on prepared food 

items regardless of the shelf price for the item. F.F. 5; T.T. 7. Employer had a policy 

that prohibited employees, including Webb, from creating and giving discounts to 

employees or their family members on food purchased in the deli unless specifically 

authorized by Employer. F.F. 9; T.T. 7 & 9.

Bain contacted Employer’s loss prevention manager, who interviewed 

the employees in Webb’s department and concluded that Webb gave the discount 

and trained her employees to give the discount. F.F. 6-8; T.T. 7 & 9. As a result, 

on June 30, 2017, Employer discharged Webb for “violations of [c]ompany policy 

in connection with [her] repeatedly granting unauthorized discounts.” 6/30/17 letter 

from Scott P. Moberg of Employee Management Consultants, Inc. to Webb. Webb 

applied for unemployment compensation benefits with the Erie Unemployment 

Compensation Service Center (UC Service Center), which denied her request. 

Subsequently, the UC Service Center issued a notice of determination of 

overpayment of benefits due to an “error” that caused Webb to be “paid for benefits 

in which she was later found not eligible to receive.” 11/8/17 Notice of 

Determination of Overpayment of Benefits. 

Webb appealed the UC Service Center’s decision to deny her request 

for unemployment compensation benefits and determination of overpayment of 

benefits to the referee, who held a hearing on the matter. Based on the evidence 

presented, the referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s decision and concluded that 

Employer met its burden of proving that it discharged Webb for reasons which rise 

to the level of willful misconduct in connection with her work pursuant to Section 
3

402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.

1

 12/18/17 Referee’s 

Decision/Order at 3. In so concluding, the referee explained:

the employer has policies which were known to [Webb]

which prohibit granting or receiving unauthorized 

discounts to or from a customer or employee and 

dishonesty in form. [Webb] was in charge of the 

department and she was required to train employees on 

policies. The employer has provided credible testimony 

that [Webb] was training employees to give employees 

and their family members discounts and [Webb] had no 

authority to do so. Although [Webb] has only admitted to 

averaging out prices, that would still be a violation of the 

employer’s policies. 

Id. The referee further concluded that Webb received unemployment compensation 

benefits to which she was not entitled due to an error at the UC Service Center, and 

therefore, has a non-fault overpayment of benefits. Id. Webb appealed the referee’s 

decision to the Board, which adopted and incorporated the referee’s findings of facts 

and conclusions of law by order dated February 26, 2018. Webb now petitions this 

Court for review.2 

 

1 Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law, Act of December 

5, 1936 (Second Exec. Sess.), P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e), provides, in relevant 

part, “[a]n employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week-- (e) [i]n which his 

unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct 

connected with his work.” 

2 Our scope of review in this case is limited to determining whether the factual findings are 

supported by substantial evidence and whether an error of law has been committed. Johnson v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 502 A.2d 738, 740 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986). Substantial evidence 

is defined as relevant evidence upon which a reasonable mind could base a conclusion. Id. The 

Board’s findings of fact are conclusive on appeal as long as the record, taken as a whole, contains 

substantial evidence to support those findings. Brandt v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 

643 A.2d 78, 79 (Pa. 1994).
4

In cases involving a work rule violation, the employer must establish 

the existence of the work rule and its violation. Cipriani v. Unemployment Comp. 

Bd. of Review, 466 A.2d 1102, 1105 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). Here, Employer 

established that it had a rule prohibiting employees from creating and giving 

discounts on prepared food items, T.T. 9, and Webb does not dispute this on appeal. 

Rather, before this Court, Webb disputes that she violated Employer’s policy. Webb 

argues that the Board erred when it adopted the referee’s finding that she “trained 

deli employees how to give the discount” because she “never gave any employee the 

authority to give discounts or even trained them to do so.” Webb’s Brief at 9. Webb 

maintains that she did not authorize or train the employees to give discounts;

therefore, the Board’s conclusion that Employer terminated her for willful 

misconduct connected to her work is not supported.

3

 Id. at 10. 

Upon review of the record, we conclude that the Board’s finding that 

Webb trained deli employees on how to give the discount, Finding of Fact 8, is 

supported by substantial evidence. At the hearing, Bain testified that the employees 

told her, when interviewed, that they would sell hot food items to the employees and 

their families at a flat rate of $3.99 per pound, that Webb was aware of this practice, 

and that Webb trained the employees to provide the discount. T.T. 6-7. A clerk in 

the hot foods deli department, Amanda Hart, testified and corroborated Bain’s 

testimony4that Webb and the cook trained Hart to authorize discounts on prepared 

foods to employees and their families. Id. at 10-11. The Board found this evidence 

 

3 Webb asserts that the referee and the Board erred when they found that she was manager 

for longer than she actually was. This was harmless error; the pertinent fact is that Webb was the 

deli manager at the time of termination. 

4 Hearsay evidence admitted without objection will be given its natural probative effect 

and may support a finding of the Board if it is corroborated by competent evidence in the record.

Walker v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976). 
5

to be credible. The Board is the ultimate fact finder and arbiter of credibility; its 

credibility determinations are not subject to re-evaluation by this Court. Waverly 

Heights, Ltd. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 173 A.3d 1224, 1227 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2017). Additionally, Webb admitted that she knew that an employee in her 

department, the cook, was discounting hot food for employees and Webb admitted 

that she made price adjustments when busy.5 T.T. 11; F.F. 7-8 & 10. Webb had no 

authority to permit employees to give the discount, yet she trained employees on 

how to give the discount. T.T. 9-11; F.F. 8- 9. This was a violation of Employer’s 

policy. Consequently, the Board did not err, as a matter of law, when it concluded 

that Employer discharged Webb for willful misconduct and denied her request for 

benefits.6 

Accordingly, we affirm. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge

 

5 Webb testified:

[T]he only thing that I ever did wrong in that [sic] Hot Foods was if 

it was really crowded, if there was a big line of people, if somebody 

came up and they wanted the hot wings and they wanted fries which 

were wedges they were called. Wedges for $3.99 a pound and the 

hot – the other chicken, it was $5.99 a pound. I would charge them 

$4.99 a pound. To me that wasn’t giving them a discount because 

the fries were very heavy, so was the meat, so to me it equaled out.

T.T. 11. 

6 To the extent Webb asserts that she is entitled to the benefits she received and no 

overpayment was made, the Board contends that Webb waived this issue because she did not raise 

it in her appeal to the Board. We agree. Merida v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 543 A.2d 

593, 596 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988) (issues not specifically raised in the appeal to the Board are waived 

and the Board is not required to review the evidence in search of errors). Moreover, given our 

conclusion that the Board did not err when it concluded that Employer discharged Webb for willful 

misconduct and, therefore, was not entitled to benefits, any benefits Webb received constituted an 

overpayment of benefits. 
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

LaVonta M. Webb, :

 Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 545 C.D. 2018

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 28th day of December, 2018, the February 26, 2018 

order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED. 

__________________________________

CHRISTINE FIZZANO CANNON, Judge