IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alicia Hunter, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 177 C.D. 2015

Respondent : Submitted: August 21, 2015

BEFORE: HONORABLE BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION

BY JUDGE McGINLEY FILED: October 16, 2015

Alicia M. Hunter (Claimant) challenges the order of the 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the referee’s 

denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law 

(Law).1

The facts, as initially found by the referee and confirmed by the 

Board, are as follows:

1. The claimant was last employed as an Assistant Office 

Manager by Salisbury Behavioral Health from January 

2006 through September 30, 2014 at the final rate of pay 

of $21.40 per hour.

2. This employer has a policy which states that the 

falsification of records, including but not limited to, 

 

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

P.S. §802(e).
2

timesheets, billing, records for individuals receiving 

services, or personnel/employment records will result in 

disciplinary up to and including [termination] of 

employment.

3. The claimant was, or should have been, aware of the 

aforesaid employer policy.

4. The claimant was in charge of the employer’s petty 

cash.

5. After a routine audit of the petty cash, the employer 

discovered discrepancies.

6. When questioned by the employer about the 

discrepancies, the claimant admitted to the employer that 

for approximately 1 year the claimant had falsified 

documentation related to petty cash.

7. As a result, on September 30, 2014 the claimant was 

discharged.

Referee’s Decision, December 5, 2014, (Decision), Findings of Fact Nos. 1-7 at 1-

2.

The referee determined:

Competent evidence presented at the Referee’s hearing 

indicates that the claimant was discharged for violating a 

known and reasonable employer policy after the claimant 

admitted to the employer that for an extended period of 

time the claimant falsified documentation relating to the 

petty cash that the claimant was placed in charge of.

At the referee’s hearing the claimant offered no adequate 

justification for violating such an important employer 

policy by falsifying documentation relating to the 

employer’s finances. That being the case, the Referee is 

constrained to decide that the evidence of record 

indicates that the claimant committed willful misconduct, 
3

thereby rendering herself ineligible for benefits in 

accordance with Section 402(e) of the Law.

Decision at 2.

The Board affirmed:

The Board adds a finding of fact that the claimant was 

discharged for falsifying documents. Even though the 

employer did not attend the hearing, the claimant 

admitted that she was discharged for falsifying 

documents, that she had falsified petty cash 

documentation for approximately a year, and that she 

knew that what she was doing was wrong. The 

claimant’s testimony also corroborated the employer’s 

unobjected to documentation in the record. The Board 

finds that the claimant disregarded the standards of 

behavior which the employer has a right to expect of an 

employee and violated the employer’s policy. Further, 

the Board finds that the claimant did not establish good 

cause for her conduct.

Board Opinion, January 29, 2015, at 1.

Claimant contends that the Board erred when it determined she was 

ineligible for benefits.2 

Whether a Claimant’s conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct 

is a question of law subject to this Court’s review. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 297 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991). Willful 

misconduct is defined as conduct that represents a wanton and willful disregard of 

 

2

This Court’s review in an unemployment compensation case 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. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 695 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994).
4

an employer’s interest, deliberate violation of rules, disregard of standards of 

behavior which an employer can rightfully expect from the employee, or 

negligence which manifests culpability, wrongful intent, evil design, or intentional 

and substantial disregard for the employer’s interest or employee’s duties and 

obligations. Frick v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 375 A.2d 

879 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1977). The employer bears the burden of proving that it 

discharged an employee for willful misconduct. City of Beaver Falls v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 441 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1982). The employer bears the burden of proving the existence of the work rule 

and its violation. Once the employer establishes that, the burden then shifts to the 

Claimant to prove that the violation was for good cause. Peak v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 1383 (Pa. 1985).

Here, Claimant indicated on her Internet Initial Claims form that she 

was discharged for violating Policy 514 Employee Conduct and that she was aware 

of the policy. Salisbury Behavioral Health (Employer) submitted Policy 514 

Employee Conduct and Discipline which states that the falsification of records was 

an example of unacceptable conduct which could result in termination. At the 

hearing before the referee, Claimant admitted that she was discharged for 

“falsifying documentation” and admitted that she did falsify documentation. Notes 

of Testimony, November 20, 2014, (N.T.) at 3. When the referee questioned3 why 

Claimant falsified documents, she responded, “I didn’t know how to let them know 

that something was wrong and I just continued to work and do my job and I just 

 

3

Employer did not allege that Claimant took the money that was missing from the 

petty cash account.
5

didn’t know how to let them know that it was wrong.” N.T. at 3. Claimant 

explained that she falsified the petty cash documentation. N.T. at 3. 

Approximately $300 was missing from petty cash. N.T. at 4. Claimant admitted 

that she should have discussed the problem with the office manager. N.T. at 5. 

Claimant further admitted that she was wrong and committed a “serious violation.” 

N.T. at 5. Claimant admitted that she was aware of Employer’s policy and violated 

it. Further, Claimant failed to provide good cause for her actions.

Although Employer did not appear at the hearing, a claimant’s own 

testimony may serve to meet Employer’s burden either alone or by corroborating 

unobjected to hearsay4evidence from the employer. DiGiovanni v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 404 A.2d 449 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1979). 

In addition, this Court has found that “deliberate falsification of 

records constitutes a conscious disregard of standards of behavior which an 

employer has the right to expect from his employees.” Nolan v. Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, 425 A.2d 1203, 1205 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). As a 

 

 

4 Hearsay is defined as a “statement, other than one made by the declarant while 

testifying at the trial or hearing offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.” 

Pa.R.E. 801(c). A “statement” is defined in the Pa.R.E. as “(1) an oral or written assertion or (2) 

nonverbal conduct of a person if it is intended by the person as an assertion.” Pa.R.E. 801(a).

An unobjected to hearsay statement will be given its probative effect and may 

support a finding of fact if corroborated by any competent evidence in the record. Walker v. 

Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 367 A.2d 366 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1976).
6

result, Claimant’s conduct would constitute willful misconduct even if Employer 

did not have a specific policy.5 

 

Accordingly, this Court affirms.

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge

 

 

5 Claimant also asserts that she did not falsify the records for close to a year but for 

approximately three months. Even if Claimant’s assertion is correct, it would not change the 

determination that she committed willful misconduct.
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Alicia Hunter, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 177 C.D. 2015

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 16th day of October, 2015, the order of the 

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

affirmed.

____________________________

BERNARD L. McGINLEY, Judge