IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stacey Renee Banks, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2430 C.D. 2014

: Submitted: September 18, 2015

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, President Judge

HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE LEAVITT FILED: November 17, 2015

Stacey Banks (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of an 

adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) 

holding that Claimant was ineligible for unemployment benefits under Section 

402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), 43 P.S. §802(e).1 In 

doing so, the Board affirmed the Referee’s decision that Claimant committed 

disqualifying misconduct by violating her employer’s policy prohibiting 

employees from having access to the personal banking information of employer’s 

clients, referred to as “consumers.” We affirm.

 

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

This section states, in relevant part, that a claimant is ineligible for unemployment benefits when 

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

misconduct connected with his work, irrespective of whether or not such work is ‘employment’

as defined in this act[.]”
2

Claimant was employed as a full-time personal care aide by Total 

Health Home Care (Employer) from July 27, 2013, until she was discharged on 

July 30, 2014. Employer discharged Claimant for conducting banking for one of 

Employer’s consumers and having his ATM card and personal identification 

number (PIN) in her possession. Claimant applied for unemployment benefits, 

which the UC Service Center denied. Claimant appealed, and a hearing was held 

before the Referee on September 25, 2014.

Employer’s human resources representative, Deborah Young, testified 

that Employer has a “Personal Business Policy” that prohibits employees from 

having access to a consumer’s banking information. Notes of Testimony, 

9/25/2014, at 3 (N.T. __); Certified Record, Item No. 3 (C.R. __), Exhibit 8. The 

policy further states that “[a]ny employee who utilizes the consumer’s ATM/MAC 

card for any reason or any other financial card including credit cards will be 

terminated.” C.R. 3, Exhibit 8. Employees are permitted to use a consumer’s 

ACCESS (food stamp) card to purchase groceries but must coordinate any cash 

withdrawals with the consumer’s social worker. Claimant acknowledged that she 

received and understood Employer’s Personal Business Policy. Id.

Young testified that Claimant provided care to one of Employer’s 

consumers six hours per day, seven days per week. The consumer is blind but 

ambulatory. In the course of investigating a complaint against Claimant, Young 

learned that Claimant had possession of the consumer’s ATM card, ACCESS card 

and the key fob he used to enter his apartment building. N.T. 3. Young instructed 

Claimant to turn these items over to Employer. Claimant gave the key fob to 

Young and informed her that the consumer’s cards were at Claimant’s home. 
3

Thereafter Claimant returned the ATM card directly to the consumer. Young 

discharged Claimant for violating the Personal Business Policy.

Claimant testified on her own behalf. She admitted to possessing the 

consumer’s ATM card, key fob and ACCESS card. N.T. 4. Claimant also 

acknowledged that she was familiar with Employer’s Personal Business Policy and 

its prohibitions on accessing a consumer’s banking information. N.T. 4-5. 

Claimant testified that Employer was aware she had the consumer’s ATM card and 

that the actual reason for her discharge was a confrontation she had with staff 

members at the consumer’s apartment building. According to Claimant, Employer 

discharged her to protect its business relationship with the building owner.

The Referee affirmed the UC Service Center’s denial of benefits. On 

review, the Board rejected Claimant’s testimony as not credible and credited 

Employer’s testimony. The Board affirmed the Referee’s decision, holding that 

Claimant’s admitted possession of the consumer’s ATM card, in violation of 

Employer’s Personal Business Policy, was disqualifying misconduct under Section 

402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(e). Further, Claimant failed to establish good 

cause for violating Employer’s policy. Claimant petitions for this Court’s review.

On appeal,2 Claimant argues that the Board erred in finding that 

Employer had a legitimate reason for terminating her employment. Claimant 

contends that Employer discharged her to protect its contract with the owner of the 

apartment building where her consumer resided. In support, Claimant asserts that 

she was harassed by three female staff members of the apartment building and, 

 

2 Our review is to determine whether the Board’s findings of fact are supported by substantial 

evidence in the record, whether errors of law were committed or whether constitutional rights 

were violated. UGI Utilities, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 851 A.2d 

240, 245 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004).
4

after she filed a complaint, learned that those individuals no longer wanted her to 

work there. Notably, Claimant does not deny having the consumer’s ATM card in 

her possession, nor does she contend that she had good cause for doing so.

Willful misconduct has been judicially defined as, inter alia, a 

deliberate violation of an employer’s rule or policy. Frumento v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 351 A.2d 631, 632 (Pa. 1976). If a claimant is 

discharged for violating a work rule, the employer bears the initial burden of 

showing “the existence of a work rule and that the claimant violated the rule.” 

ATM Corporation of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 

892 A.2d 859, 865 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). “Once the employer establishes those 

elements, the burden then shifts to the claimant to show that she had good cause to 

violate the rule.” Id. Further, “the Board is the ultimate finder of fact, and 

questions of credibility and evidentiary weight to be given to conflicting testimony 

which was found to be credible are matters for the Board as factfinder and not for a 

reviewing court.” Stringent v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 

A.2d 1084, 1087 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

Here, the Board rejected as not credible Claimant’s testimony that the 

real basis for her discharge was a dispute with employees of the consumer’s 

apartment building. Claimant’s reassertion of that argument on appeal is 

unavailing and irrelevant to the stated reason for her discharge, which was 

violating Employer’s Personal Business Policy. See also Tapco, Inc. v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1994) (that claimant may have offered different version of events, or viewed

testimony differently than Board, is not grounds for reversal if substantial evidence 

supports the Board’s findings). The Board’s determination that Claimant violated 
5

Employer’s policy, of which Claimant was aware, was supported by substantial 

evidence, i.e., Employer’s credited evidence that Claimant possessed her 

consumer’s ATM card, which was corroborated by Claimant’s own testimony. 

Claimant has offered no evidence that she had good cause for violating Employer’s 

policy. Thus, we agree with the Board that Claimant is ineligible for benefits 

under Section 402(e) of the Law, 43 P.S. §802(e). 

For all of the foregoing reasons, the order of the Board is affirmed.

 ______________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Stacey Renee Banks, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2430 C.D. 2014

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 17th day of November, 2015 the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter 

dated December 10, 2014, is AFFIRMED.

 ______________________________

 MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge