IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William C. Thigpen, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2426 C.D. 2014

: Submitted: August 28, 2015

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY

SENIOR JUDGE COLINS FILED: September 29, 2015

William C. Thigpen (Claimant) petitions, pro se, for review of an 

order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) affirming the 

decision of the referee that found Claimant ineligible for unemployment 

compensation benefits. The referee concluded that Claimant was discharged from 

his employment as a Program Counseling Coordinator with Pennsylvania 

CareerLink Chester County (Employer) for inappropriate behavior in the 

workplace, and that this violation amounted to willful misconduct under section 

402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.

 

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 shall be ineligible for compensation for any 

week in which his or her unemployment is due to discharge for willful misconduct connected to 

his or her work. 43 P.S. § 802(e). 
2

Claimant applied for unemployment benefits following his discharge 

from employment with Employer. The Department of Labor and Industry issued 

an August 29, 2014 determination finding him ineligible for benefits. (Record 

Item (R. Item) 6, Notice of Determination.) Claimant appealed, and a hearing was 

held before a referee on October 2, 2014, at which Claimant, without counsel,

appeared; Employer was represented by counsel and presented four witnesses. (R. 

Item 11, Referee Hearing: Transcript of Testimony (H.T.).) Following the hearing, 

the referee issued an October 3, 2014 decision and order denying Claimant 

unemployment benefits. (R. Item 12, Referee Decision/Order.) Claimant appealed 

to the Board and the Board issued a December 10, 2014 order affirming the 

referee’s determination, and adopting and incorporating the referee’s findings and 

conclusions. (R. Item 14, Board’s Order.) The findings of fact adopted by the 

Board were as follows:

1. Claimant worked full-time beginning on May 9, 2011 as a Program 

Counseling Coordinator until his last day worked on August 11, 2014, 

at a final salary of $45,431 per year.

2. On April 2, 2013, Employer warned Claimant about inappropriate 

behavior exhibited in the office.

3. On July 15, 2014, Claimant was required to attend a training given 

by a co-worker on a new filing system.

4. Employer was required to move from a single manila folder to a 6-

section file which would contain additional paperwork. The 

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania was requiring the CareerLink to 

begin utilizing the 6-section filing system per client.

5. Prior to the training on July 15, 2014, the Director informed 

Claimant and others that they were required to implement this new 

system.
3

6. On July 15, 2014, during the training, Claimant appeared angry, 

interrupted the trainer, spoke over the trainer and was difficult. The 

trainer had allocated a half hour for the training but the training lasted 

over one hour because of Claimant’s behavior. 

7. The training group consisted of the trainer, Claimant and another 

individual.

8. After conducting the training, the trainer complained to her 

supervisor that she felt Claimant had bullied her during the training 

where she was just performing her job duties.

9. Employer discharged Claimant for inappropriate behavior 

exhibited during the meeting.

(R. Item 12, Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶¶1-9.)

Claimant appealed the Board’s decision and order to this Court.

2

 

The term willful misconduct is not defined within Section 402(e) of the Law, but 

has been interpreted by the courts to include: 1) wanton or willful disregard of the 

employer’s interests; 2) deliberate violation of the employer’s rules or directives; 

3) disregard of the standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect 

from an employee; and 4) negligence demonstrating an intentional disregard of the 

employer’s interest or the employee’s duties and obligations. Scott v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 36 A.3d 643, 647 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2012). Whether a claimant’s conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a 

question of law that is subject to plenary review by this Court. Orend v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 821 A.2d 659, 661 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2003).

 

2 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether necessary findings of fact are supported 

by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed and whether constitutional rights 

were violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; Smithley v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 8 A.3d 1027, 1029 n.5 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
4

The employer bears the burden of proving that the claimant was 

discharged for willful misconduct. Greer v. Unemployment Compensation Board 

of Review, 4 A.3d 733, 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). When the alleged willful 

misconduct involves the violation of a work rule or policy, the employer must 

prove the existence of the rule, the reasonableness of the rule, and the fact of the 

claimant’s violation. Lewis v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 42 

A.3d 375, 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012); Brady v. Unemployment Compensation Board

of Review, 539 A.2d 936, 938 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988). Once an employer has proved 

the violation of the work rule or policy, the burden then shifts to the claimant to 

prove that he or she had good cause for the violation. Bell Socialization Services v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 74 A.3d 1146, 1147 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2013). The claimant establishes good cause where he or she demonstrates that the 

actions are justified or reasonable under the circumstances. Id. at 1147-48.

Before this Court, Claimant denies that he engaged in confrontational 

behavior at the training session. Claimant further argues that if his behavior at the 

training session was inappropriate, it was far less inappropriate than that of the 

CareerLink managers and colleagues who, he contends, uttered derogatory names 

to describe their clientele. He seeks to justify his behavior at the training session 

by explaining that he was trying to save Chester County taxpayers the expense of 

redoing a project that he asserts failed miserably two years before. He also states

that excessive stress he felt at work was due to management’s failure to implement 

his suggestions on how the workplace should be run, and the changing 

environment at the workplace since its move, in summer 2014, from Coatesville to 

Exton. Claimant also suggests that had Employer taken action to address his 

health problems, including high blood pressure, anxiety and depression, the 
5

training session incident would not have occurred; he argues that two proffered 

letters, one from his treating physician and one from a Crisis Specialist at the crisis 

residential facility where he was treated following his termination from 

employment should have been admitted into evidence at the referee hearing. 

Before the referee, Employer presented the testimony of the Site 

Administrator, who was Claimant’s direct supervisor. The Site Administrator 

testified that there were numerous occasions when he had met with Claimant to 

discuss his inappropriate behavior and its impact on office operations, and referred 

specifically to events in March 2013 that triggered the issuance of what was termed 

a “last chance agreement” or “continuation of employment agreement” that the Site 

Administrator sent to Claimant on April 2, 2013. (H.T. at 13-14.) This document 

sets forth three incidents during which Claimant was described as argumentative 

and combative while discussing work processes. (R. Item 11, Employer Exhibit 

1.) The document states that if Claimant fails to improve in the areas outlined, or 

“ever act[s] again in a manner that can be considered hostile, offensive or 

antagonistic toward a county employee...further disciplinary action up to and 

including termination may occur.” (Id.) 

Employer also presented the testimony of the two other employees, 

each a Program Coordinator, who were present at the training meeting that 

triggered Claimant’s dismissal for inappropriate behavior. This meeting was held 

for the purpose of introducing procedural programming changes mandated by the 

Commonwealth, with explanation of new forms. (H.T. at 14.) One of the Program 

Coordinators was acting as program monitor for the mandated changes and was

charged with conducting the meeting; she stated that Claimant resisted the changes 

and was belligerent and argumentative throughout, yelling at times and leaving her 
6

shaken. (H.T. at 19-22.) The other Program Coordinator confirmed that Claimant 

was very angry, would not listen and continually spoke over the voice of the 

training leader. (H.T. at 27.) The Director of the County Workforce Investment 

Board, who signed the April 2013 warning letter and participated in the July 2014 

meeting during which Claimant was notified that his employment was terminated, 

testified that one week prior to the training meeting he met with Claimant and the 

other Program Coordinators to communicate that the training was going to occur 

and identify who would be leading the training. (H.T. at 6.) The Director stated 

that he clearly communicated to Claimant and the other employees his expectation 

that they would cooperate to create and maintain the new filing system in 

compliance with the Commonwealth’s directives. (H.T. at 6-7.) 

Before the referee, Claimant acknowledged his frustration with the 

mandated changes and with his duties at work generally,3and testified as to his 

belief that there would not be sufficient time or adequate workforce to accomplish 

the changes; however, he denied having bullied or intimidated his fellow 

employees during the training meeting. (H.T. at 33-36.) The referee questioned 

Claimant as to whether he informed Employer during his employment of any 

medical condition or issues; Claimant answered “no,” stating that four other 

employees, all, like Claimant, over the age of 60 had been terminated for absences 

from work due to medical conditions and he felt he could not speak to Employer 

about his health issues. (H.T. at 37.) The referee did not admit the letters from 

 

3 Claimant testified that since the CareerLink office had been moved from Coatesville to Exton 

and the numbers of clients able to access the new location had dropped, there had been a 

directive to begin accommodating clients from halfway houses, methadone clinics, and shelters; 

he stated that his job had been to find training for clients, but these new clients had no intention 

of getting a job, nor were there budget funds to pay for training these individuals. (H.T. at 36.) 
7

Claimant’s physician and the crisis residential facility into evidence, indicating that 

they were prepared after the date of Claimant’s discharge from employment. (Id.) 

 Here, it is undisputed that Claimant was warned in April 2013 that 

any future hostile, offensive or antagonistic behavior in the workplace could result 

in the termination of his employment. The Board found that Claimant’s actions 

during the July 2014 training session must be considered a deliberate violation of 

Employer’s directive. We are bound to examine the testimony in the light most 

favorable to Employer, in whose favor the Board found, giving it the benefit of all 

inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony. Spencer 

v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 602 A.2d 484, 485 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 1992).

 We conclude that Employer established willful misconduct via 

violation of a known work directive and that he exhibited behavior clearly contrary 

to Employer’s interests in maintaining a positive work environment. We must 

therefore determine whether Claimant established good cause for his actions, and 

here, we find Claimant’s various arguments to be without merit. Employer was 

required, and Claimant was aware that Employer was required under 

Commonwealth mandate, to implement the filing system changes which Claimant 

vehemently resisted. Claimant’s belief that the mandated changes were 

burdensome and unnecessary cannot justify his aggressive behavior towards his 

colleagues at the training meeting. The record contains no testimony, and there is 

simply no evidence to support Claimant’s assertion that Employer’s management 

uttered derogatory remarks about its clientele, and thereby exhibited more 

inappropriate actions than those exhibited by Claimant or, as Claimant also 
8

speculated, that Employer was attempting to terminate Claimant’s employment 

before he could submit a request for an extended absence due to illness. 

Claimant admitted at the referee hearing that he did not inform 

Employer of any medical conditions that may have impacted his performance at 

the workplace. Therefore, we find no merit in his contention that Employer knew 

about his health issues, and could have prevented the incidents that occurred at the 

training session had it addressed them. Nor is there evidence that he could not 

report health issues. To the contrary, the “last chance agreement” signed by 

Claimant states “[t]he County’s Employee Assistance Program, Health Advocate, 

Inc. can be confidentially reached to assist you by calling [phone number] to 

discuss your continued inability to deal with people in the workplace.” (R. Item 

11, Employer Exhibit 1.) Furthermore, in correspondence to the referee prior to 

the hearing, Claimant states that he is not using the fact that he was seeking 

professional help for his depression as an excuse for his actions, but rather to shed 

light on his situation. (R. Item 10, Additional Claimant Information.)

 The referee likewise did not err in denying admission of the letters 

that Claimant sought to have admitted into evidence. These documents could not 

have constituted evidence sufficient to establish justification for Claimant’s 

inappropriate behavior on July 15, 2014. One document consists of a singlesentence letter verifying that Claimant was treated for severe depression, stress, 

and anxiety at a crisis residential facility for a nine-day period; however, this

treatment began one month after his termination from employment. (Id.) The other 

document, a letter dated approximately one month following Claimant’s 

termination from employment, indicates that Claimant had been seen at the

physician’s office on a regular basis for treatment and management of 
9

“hypertension, asthma, psoriasis, osteoarthritis, depression and obesity;” the period 

of treatment is not set forth in the letter. (Id.) 

While this Court has held that physical illness and its attendant 

circumstances can constitute good cause for violating an employer’s policy, 

Thompson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 723 A.2d 743, 744-

45 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999), Claimant in no way establishes that his depression, a 

condition he admits he concealed from his Employer, was the cause of 

inappropriate behavior on his part. The record supports the Board’s finding that 

after receiving an explicit warning about argumentative and combative behavior in 

the workplace in violation of department policy, Claimant again exhibited such 

behavior in a meeting, resulting in the termination of his employment for willful 

misconduct. Accordingly, we affirm.

__________ ___________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

William C. Thigpen, :

:

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 2426 C.D. 2014

: 

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, :

:

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 29th day of September, 2015, the Order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is 

hereby AFFIRMED.

__________ ___________________________

JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge