IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tammy H. Chimics, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1298 C.D. 2017 and

: No. 1299 C.D. 2017

Unemployment Compensation : SUBMITTED: November 9, 2018

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge 

HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: March 13, 2019

Tammy Chimics (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the August 22, 

2017 Orders of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming 

the Referee’s decision to deny Claimant unemployment compensation (UC) benefits. 

The Board concluded that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 

402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1following her termination for 

willful misconduct. After careful review, we affirm.

Background

Claimant has worked as a high school language arts teacher for the Troy Area 

School District (District) since August 25, 1999. Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 6/27/17, 

at 30. In the fall of 2016, the District initiated an investigation into allegations that the 

high school boys’ basketball coach (Co-worker), had physically assaulted a player. Id. 

 

1 Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).

Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for any week “[i]n 

which [her] employment is due to [her] discharge . . . from work for willful misconduct connected 

with [her] work.” 43 P.S. § 802(e). 
2

at 26. Co-worker and Claimant were dating at the time. Id. at 31. Claimant assisted 

Co-worker throughout the investigation by gathering and organizing documents related 

to the investigation. Id. Seeking additional input on the investigation, Claimant used 

her District email address to forward those documents to individuals outside the 

District’s employ. Id. at 33-34. As a result of these actions, Claimant was accused of 

violating several District policies, including a confidentiality policy which prohibited

the release of confidential and sensitive information. Id. at 14, 16, 20. Claimant was 

suspended without pay effective April 17, 2017 and terminated by the school board on 

May 9, 2017.2 Id. at 12, 29. 

Claimant applied for UC benefits with the local service center.

3

 In her claimant 

questionnaire, Claimant admitted to having violated the District’s policy, but asserted 

it was not done “intentionally or maliciously.” Certified Record, (C.R.), Item No. 2. 

Claimant maintained that, if she had known she was violating the District’s policy, she 

would have used her personal email address, rather than her District email address. Id. 

The Altoona Service Center (Service Center) granted Claimant benefits for the 

period of time during which she was merely suspended for violating the District’s 

policies. C.R., Item No. 4. For the period following Claimant’s termination from 

employment, she was deemed ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. 

Id. Both the District and Claimant appealed. C.R., Item No. 5. 

 

2 Claimant was reinstated to her teaching position at the commencement of the 2017-2018 

school year. Claimant’s Br. at 7. Consequently, her claim for benefits is limited to that period during 

which she was suspended or terminated by the District.

3 For reasons not entirely clear in the record, Claimant initiated two claims for UC benefits. 

Separate determinations were issued by the Service Center. C.R., Item No. 4. The Referee held one 

hearing for both appeals but issued separate decisions, as did the Board. Id., Item Nos. 9, 12. The 

appeals from the Board’s orders were consolidated by an order of this Court dated November 17, 

2017. 
3

A hearing was held before the Referee on June 27, 2017. The District presented 

the testimony of its Superintendent of Schools, Charles Young. Claimant testified on 

her own behalf. 

Mr. Young testified that, in the course of investigating the allegations against 

Co-worker, he was tasked by the school board to determine the source of “leaks of 

information” which identified to the public the students and parents who lodged 

complaints against Co-worker. Id. at 14. A review of Co-worker’s District email 

account indicated he shared documents related to the investigation with Claimant. Id. 

A subsequent review of Claimant’s District email account revealed she forwarded those 

documents, which identified, by name, the student allegedly assaulted by Co-worker

as well as the parent who made the initial complaint, to Wayne Holland and Mariah

Castle. Id. at 24-25, Ex. Nos. E-9 – E-12. Neither Mr. Holland nor Ms. Castle were 

employed by the District. Id. at 22, 25. 

Mr. Young testified that the District has a confidentiality policy which is 

reviewed annually with District employees. Id. at 25. Employees are required to sign 

an acknowledgement that they read and understand the policy. Id. Claimant signed 

such an acknowledgment on August 24, 2016. N.T., 6/27/17, Ex. No. E-1. The policy 

provides in relevant part that employees are to secure confidential information in their 

charge. Id. An employee who reads confidential information is prohibited from 

discussing it with another person. Id. Employees may only use student and other 

confidential records if a legitimate need exists. Id. Employees who violate the policy 

are subject to discipline or discharge, depending on the facts and circumstances of the 

violation. Id. Essentially, the policy requires that “identifiable information on 

students” be kept private and “not broadcast to anybody who does not have an 

educational need to know.” Id. at 16. Claimant had no legitimate reason to possess 

documents related to the investigation of Co-worker. Id. at 15. Once she obtained such
4

information, however, Claimant should have refrained from disclosing it to anyone 

else. Id. at 20.

While investigating potential violations of the confidentiality policy, Mr. Young 

discovered that Claimant also used her District email account to send what he deemed 

“press releases” to the Daily Review, a local newspaper, and WETM, a local news 

affiliate. Id. at 17-18. The January 17, 2017 email to the Daily Review contains the 

following text:

[Co-worker] conducts his first 3rd and 4th grade basketball 

practice of the season at the Commons Building Saturday 

morning on the heels of his suspension from his Varsity 

coaching position which was handed to him by the school 

district on Thursday, Dec. 29th. Although the district voted 

in an executive session held on Wednesday, Dec. 28th to 

suspend [Co-worker], a violation of the Sunshine Act,[

4

] he 

has not been restricted from coaching 3rdand 4th grade 

basketball nor has he been suspended from his teaching 

position at the Troy High School. His suspension without 

pay is pending a [Children and Youth Services] investigation 

where allegations were brought to the administration that 

[Co-worker] “in some fashion” “struck” a player at a practice 

in November. Although high school administration 

conducted an investigation of [its] own prior to Dec. 28th

speaking to players twice about allegations ranging from 

making a player run for conditioning purposes after being 

late one hour to practice to hitting a player, the school board 

still decided in the Dec. 28th executive session to suspend 

him. Both high school investigations were concluded 

“unfounded” on all allegations. A school board meeting is 

being held on Tuesday, Jan. 10th where supporters of [Coworker] are planning to ask questions of the school board 

concerning the decision to suspend him in an executive 

session and not in an open board meeting.

 

4 The Sunshine Act provides that the public has the right to be notified of and present at 

meetings of agencies at which any agency business is discussed or acted upon. 65 Pa.C.S. §§ 701-

716. 
5

N.T., 6/27/17, Ex. No. E-3. The text of the email sent to WETM differed only slightly, 

noting that the school board meeting took place and questions from Co-worker’s 

supporters were not answered. Id., Ex. No. E-4. Mr. Young testified that Claimant’s 

conduct violated District policy, as press releases must first be approved by the 

Superintendent. Id. at 16. 

Claimant did not deny the conduct which led to her termination. She testified 

the documents were forwarded to Mr. Holland upon his request, as he was a friend of 

Co-worker. Id. at 33. The documents were shared with Ms. Castle, a friend to both 

Claimant and Co-worker, “to see if there was anything she could shed light on.” Id. at 

34. At that time, Claimant did not believe she was violating the District’s 

confidentiality policy, and she did not believe the emails sent to the Daily Review and 

WETM constituted press releases. Id. Claimant asserted the matter of Co-worker’s 

suspension was well-known before she disclosed information to Mr. Holland and Ms. 

Castle, as “[a]ll the kids were talking about it at school.” Id. at 37. 

The Referee found that the District had a confidentiality policy which prohibited 

the disclosure of private student information, and Claimant acknowledged her receipt 

of that policy on August 24, 2016. Referee’s Decision, Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 5-

6. The Referee reasoned that Claimant should have known she was violating the 

District’s policy when she revealed confidential information to individuals not 

employed by the District and her conduct rose to the level of willful misconduct. 

Referee’s Decision at 3. The Referee further found Claimant sent press releases to the 

Daily Review and WETM without authorization from the Superintendent. F.F. No. 12. 

As a result of these policy violations, Claimant was ineligible for benefits under Section 

402(e) of the Law, and the Service Center’s grant of benefits was reversed. Id. at 3.

Claimant appealed to the Board, which adopted and incorporated the Referee’s 

findings and conclusions. Bd.’s Order at 1. Additionally, the Board discredited 
6

Claimant’s testimony that she was not aware of the District’s press release policy and 

that she did not believe her emails to news outlets constituted press releases. Id.

Accordingly, the Board affirmed the Referee. Id. These appeals followed.

Issue

On appeal,5 Claimant argues the Board erred in finding her violation of the 

District’s policies constituted willful misconduct. Claimant does not dispute she 

violated the policies but maintains her violations were not willful. Claimant asserts

that, even if her conduct violated any policies, she had good cause for her actions, as 

she was assisting her boyfriend with accusations that could result in the loss of his job 

and the initiation of criminal charges. Claimant implies her disclosure of confidential 

information was of no consequence because the “entire community” knew about the 

circumstances of Co-worker’s suspension from his position as basketball coach. 

Claimant’s Br. at 15. 

Discussion

Our Court has defined “willful misconduct” as a wanton or willful disregard of 

the employer’s interests, a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules, a disregard of 

the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of its employees, or 

negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interests or of the 

employee’s duties and obligations. Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 83 

A.3d 484, 486-87 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014). An employer seeking to prove that a claimant 

committed willful misconduct by violating a work policy “must demonstrate the 

existence of the policy, its reasonableness, and its violation.” Klampfer v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 182 A.3d 495, 500 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018). If the

employer satisfies its burden of proving “the existence of a reasonable work rule and 

 

5 This Court’s review is limited to a determination of whether constitutional rights were 

violated, errors of law were committed, or findings of fact were not supported by substantial evidence. 

Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432, 438 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). 
7

its deliberate violation, [then] the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate good 

cause for violating the rule.” Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 

An employee establishes good cause where her actions are justified or reasonable 

under the circumstances. Bell Socialization Servs., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 74 A.3d 1146, 1147 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). A claimant does not have good 

cause to violate a work rule where reasonable alternative means exist to address the 

concerns that led to the violation of the work rule. Arbster v. Unemployment Comp. 

Bd. of Review, 690 A.2d 805, 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

The Board’s findings are conclusive on appeal so long as the record, taken as a 

whole, contains substantial evidence to support those findings. Spiropoulos v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 654 A.2d 642, 644 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 

Substantial evidence is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as 

adequate to support a conclusion. Id. at 644, n4.

Here, the District established through the testimony of Mr. Young that it had a 

policy which prohibited the disclosure of confidential information, and Claimant was 

aware of that policy. F.F. Nos. 5-6. A violation of the policy could result in 

termination, depending on the circumstances. N.T., 6/27/17, Ex. No. 1. Claimant came 

into possession of confidential information when it was forwarded to her by Co-worker. 

Id. at 14. Claimant violated the District’s confidentiality policy when she then

forwarded that information to individuals not employed by the District. Id., Ex. Nos. 

E-9 – E-12. 

Claimant’s assertion that her violation of the confidentiality policy was not 

willful is contradicted by the record. Claimant deliberately forwarded confidential 

information to non-District employees, and nothing in the record suggests that her 

actions were in any way inadvertent or an act of absent-mindedness. While use of a 
8

private email address might have allowed Claimant’s violation to go undetected, such 

an action would still constitute a policy violation, as the policy prohibits anyone who 

obtains confidential information from discussing it with others. Such information may 

only be used by an employee with a “legitimate educational need” to do so, and the 

policy contains no exception for information known in certain circles of the community 

at large. N.T., 6/27/17, Ex. No. E-1. It strains credulity that a teacher employed with 

the District for 18 years, who has received annual training on the District’s 

confidentiality policy, would not realize her conduct constituted a violation of that

policy. 

As to Claimant’s violation of the District’s press release policy, the Board 

explicitly discredited Claimant’s testimony that she was unaware of the policy and that 

she did not believe her emails constituted press releases. It is well settled that the Board 

is the ultimate factfinder in UC cases and empowered to determine the credibility of 

witnesses. Curran v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 752 A.2d 938, 940 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2000). 

Based on Claimant’s admissions and Mr. Young’s testimony, we conclude the

record contains substantial evidence to support the Board’s finding that Claimant 

deliberately violated the District’s press release and confidentiality policies.

Because Employer satisfied its burden of proof, the burden then shifted to 

Claimant to establish good cause for violating the District’s policies. Claimant’s 

assertion of good cause is rooted in the consequences that Co-worker faced as the result 

of the assault allegations against him. 

On several occasions, this Court has been tasked with determining whether a 

claimant’s release of confidential information in contravention of an employer’s policy 

was excused for good cause. In Spiropoulos, 654 A.2d at 644, a former prison 

employee was denied UC benefits for copying confidential inmate records and 
9

providing them to a prisoner advocacy group, in violation of the employer’s policy. 

This Court concluded the claimant’s actions did not constitute good cause, even 

assuming he acted out of legitimate concern for the rights of inmates. Id. at 645. The 

claimant in Arbster was a nurse who accessed confidential medical records for a patient 

not under her care. 690 A.2d at 807. Despite the fact that the patient was the claimant’s 

mother, the Court concluded the claimant lacked good cause for violating her 

employer’s confidentiality policy because alternative means existed, such as the receipt 

of written authorization to view the records, which could have addressed any concerns

with the care being provided to her mother. Id. at 809-10. 

Claimant’s derogation of her responsibility to safeguard confidential information

in an effort to help her boyfriend was not just or reasonable. Accordingly, we conclude 

that Claimant failed to demonstrate good cause for violating the District’s policy.

Conclusion

Based on the evidence of record, we conclude that Claimant was discharged for 

willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law and is, therefore, ineligible for UC 

benefits. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Orders.

_______________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Tammy H. Chimics, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 1298 C.D. 2017

: No. 1299 C.D. 2017

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 13th day of March, 2019, the Orders of the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, dated August 22, 2017, are hereby affirmed. 

________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge