IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

White Rose Credit Union, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 694 C.D. 2019

: SUBMITTED: November 8, 2019

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge

HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge

HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION 

BY JUDGE CEISLER FILED: January 6, 2020

White Rose Credit Union (Employer) petitions for review of the May 7, 2019 

Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) reversing the 

decision of a Referee to deny Jennifer F. Swanner (Claimant) unemployment 

compensation (UC) benefits. The Board concluded that Claimant was eligible for

UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law)1

because Employer failed to prove that she was discharged for willful misconduct. 

We affirm the Board’s Order.

Background

Claimant worked full time as Vice President of Marketing for Employer from 

August 23, 2011 through August 30, 2018. Bd.’s Finding of Fact (F.F.) No. 1; 

 

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 states that an employee shall be ineligible for UC benefits for 

any week “[i]n which his [or her] unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension 

from work for willful misconduct connected with his [or her] work.” 43 P.S. § 802(e).
2

Record (R.) Item No. 3. Employer has a policy that prohibits its employees from 

making false statements about Employer, its employees, or its members. Bd.’s F.F. 

No. 2. Employer also has a policy that provides for an employee’s discharge if the 

employee demonstrates unsatisfactory work performance. Id. No. 3. Claimant was 

aware of Employer’s policies. Id. Nos. 2, 3.

On August 21, 2018, Claimant and one of her subordinates, Robert Ford, were

expected to represent Employer at a marketing event at Central Market in York, 

Pennsylvania, from approximately 11:00 a.m. until 2:00 p.m. Id. No. 4; Notes of 

Testimony (N.T.), 10/22/18, at 10, 13. Claimant and Mr. Ford arrived at Central 

Market that day at 11:30 a.m., but the outside event had been cancelled due to light 

rain. Bd.’s F.F. No. 5. Claimant networked with patrons inside the market and 

handed out promotional items displaying Employer’s logo. Id. Around 12:00 p.m., 

Claimant gave Mr. Ford a lunch break. Id. No. 6; N.T., 10/22/18, at 11, 13. Claimant

also took a lunch break at that time and walked to a food vendor just outside of the 

market. Bd.’s F.F. No. 6. Claimant returned to Central Market around 1:00 p.m.

and continued to network with patrons and vendors inside the market until 2:00 p.m. 

Id. Claimant left promotional materials inside the market before she left the 

premises for the day. Id.

Three other employees of Employer went to Central Market that day for lunch, 

arriving around 11:50 a.m. and leaving around 1:00 p.m. Id. No. 7. These

employees did not see Claimant or Mr. Ford while they were at Central Market. Id.

No. 8.

Later that day, Employer’s Vice President of Human Resources, Tamika 

Baker, overheard Claimant describing the Central Market event to another coworker as “busy” and stating that Claimant handed out Employer’s promotional 
3

materials at the market. Id. No. 9; N.T., 10/23/18, at 2, 6. Ms. Baker was one of the 

three employees who had gone to Central Market for lunch. Bd.’s F.F. No. 9. Ms. 

Baker had concerns about Claimant’s integrity after overhearing this conversation. 

Id. No. 10.

On August 30, 2018, Ms. Baker and Employer’s Chief Executive Officer, 

Debra Kauffman, met with Claimant regarding her representation to another coworker that she was at Central Market on August 21, 2018. Id. No. 11; N.T., 

10/22/18, at 7-8. Claimant told them that she was present at Central Market that day. 

Bd.’s F.F. No. 11; see N.T., 10/22/18, at 8 (Claimant testified that she “absolutely 

was present at the [Central Market] event”).

Employer offered Claimant an opportunity to resign in lieu of discharge. 

Bd.’s F.F. No. 12. Employer initiated the termination due to Claimant’s violation of 

its policies prohibiting unsatisfactory work performance and false statements and 

Claimant’s failure to maintain integrity. Id.

Claimant filed a claim for UC benefits, which the local UC Service Center 

denied. The Service Center noted that the record contained conflicting evidence 

regarding whether Claimant voluntarily quit or was discharged from her 

employment; however, the Service Center ultimately found that Claimant

voluntarily quit because she “initiated the separation” from employment. Not. of

Determination, 9/27/18, at 1. The Service Center found that “although the Claimant 

had a necessitous and compelling reason for quitting, . . . [she] did not exhaust all 

alternatives prior to quitting.” Id. Therefore, the Service Center determined that 

Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law.2 Id.

 

2 Section 402(b) of the Law provides that an employee shall be ineligible for UC benefits 

for any week “[i]n which his [or her] unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without 

cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.” 43 P.S. § 802(b).
4

Claimant timely appealed to the Referee, who held a hearing on October 22, 

2018. At the hearing, Claimant testified that on August 21, 2018, she and Mr. Ford 

were scheduled to attend a lunchtime networking event known as “Box Lunch 

Review” at Central Market. N.T., 10/22/18, at 10. The event was organized by York 

City Special Events, but Employer is one of the event’s sponsors. Id. at 9. Claimant 

testified that “[t]his was the second season that [Employer] had participated in this 

event, which happened numerous times throughout the summer.” Id. at 8. Claimant 

described the nature of the event as follows:

Typically, when the event happens outside, my staff and I would set up 

a table with marketing supplies and giveaways. We would spend ou[r]

time just networking with the people that attend the event. It was more 

important for us to network versus giving items away. We also made 

it a priority to network with local business owners and vendors.

. . . .

[However,] the table was not set up [on August 21, 2018] because the 

event was brought inside of the market because of the weather, which 

was typical for that particular event[,] because it’s an outdoor event. 

Numerous times it’s been brought inside.

. . . .

[It] was not my call to bring the event inside [that day]. It’s not our 

event that we put on. It’s just an event that we attend.

Id. at 9. 

Claimant testified that she and Mr. Ford arrived at Central Market at 11:30 

a.m. that day and had come directly from another marketing event that ended at 

11:00 a.m. Id. at 10-11. When they arrived at Central Market, Claimant and her 

staff were “exhausted” and “hungry.” Id. at 10. Claimant testified:
5

I told my staff, if you want to go and get something to eat and take a 

little bit of a break; the event that we were going to be doing over the 

lunch hour was going to be different than what we normally do. So, I 

made the call to let my staff go take a break and then, I also went and 

took a . . . lunch break. I went and got some food from one of the 

vendors inside the market and then, I also went and walked to York 

City Pretzel, which is just outside of the market, to just do some general 

networking with the business owners there, as we were featuring one of 

them in our upcoming newsletter.

Id. at 11; see id. at 13-14. After their lunch breaks, Claimant and Mr. Ford “spent 

the last hour . . . networking and mingling” and “talking to a handful of different 

business owners that were vendors in the market.” Id. at 11-12. Claimant further 

testified that she handed out newsletters and pen cards3 bearing Employer’s logo to 

patrons at Central Market. Id. at 16-17. Claimant stated, “I didn’t put any 

[promotional materials] on the tables inside of the market. I did have a few pen cards 

in my hand and the very few people that were sitting and having lunch, I walked up 

to them and offered them a pen card.” Id. at 17. Claimant testified that Mr. Ford 

did not hand out promotional materials because Claimant carried the bag containing 

the materials, which she brought with her when she went to York City Pretzel. Id.

at 17-18.

After receiving Claimant’s testimony, the Referee stopped the hearing and 

continued it to the next day so that Claimant could attend a scheduled job interview. 

Id. at 20.

 

3 Claimant explained that “pen cards” are “little cards that have pens attached to them.” 

N.T., 10/22/18, at 9.
6

Claimant did not appear at the hearing on October 23, 2018.

4

 Employer 

presented the testimony of Ms. Baker, Ms. Kauffman, and Bryan Smith, Employer’s 

Vice President of Lending. Mr. Smith testified that he, Ms. Baker, and Tina Shiller

went to Central Market for lunch around 11:50 a.m. on August 21, 2018. N.T., 

10/23/18, at 3; Bd.’s F.F. No. 7. Mr. Smith testified that the three of them walked 

around the market looking for a place to eat and “did not see either [Claimant or Mr. 

Ford], [and] didn’t see any evidence of [Employer’s promotional materials] at the 

entire event.” N.T., 10/23/18, at 3. Mr. Smith testified that he “was looking for 

[Claimant and Mr. Ford] because we expected them to be there.” Id. at 4.

Ms. Baker testified that she went to Central Market for lunch with Mr. Smith 

and Ms. Shiller that day and did not see Claimant, Mr. Ford, or any Employer 

literature or promotional materials inside the market. Id. at 4-5. When Ms. Baker

returned to the office after lunch, she “overheard [Claimant] saying [to Ms. Shiller] 

how busy [Central Market] was, that [Claimant] handed out p[e]n cards and 

newsletters inside and out, and she also talked about where she ate.” Id. at 6. Ms. 

Baker testified that after overhearing this conversation,

I was very concerned. I was very shocked, because I felt that 

[Claimant’s] integrity was in question, because we were just at that 

event, and we did not see [Claimant] []or [Mr. Ford]. I was concerned, 

because it sounded like a story. I felt that she wasn’t telling the truth.

 

4 Regarding Claimant’s failure to appear, the Board found:

[C]laimant did not appear at the continued hearing because her brother with special 

needs had fallen at his day program. [C]laimant had to go to the hospital to fulfill 

the role as legal guardian because her mother was out of the state. [C]laimant 

requested a continuance of the hearing[, which the Referee denied].

Bd.’s F.F. No. 13; see N.T., 2/8/19, at 4-5.
7

Id. at 6-7. Ms. Baker believed that given Claimant’s senior management position

with Employer, “th[ere] was a huge problem with [Claimant’s] integrity.” Id. at 8.

Ms. Baker met with Mr. Ford and asked him whether he had attended the Box 

Lunch Review event, and he “stat[ed] that [he and Claimant] were there at the Box 

Lunch Rev[iew] that day.” Id. at 7. Ms. Baker also met with Claimant, who “stated 

that [she and Mr. Ford] were present at the Box Lunch Rev[iew], [and] that they 

spoke to a lot of people.” Id. at 10. Employer discharged Claimant for violating its 

policies prohibiting “unsatisfactory work performance” and “making false claims or 

statements” and for violating Employer’s “core values . . . [of] integrity, . . . 

commitment, accountability[,] and respect.” Id. at 15.

Following the hearings, the Referee concluded that Claimant was ineligible 

for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law because she was discharged for 

willful misconduct.5 The Referee determined:

At the hearing, [C]laimant testified that she did not distribute 

[promotional] material[s] and did not provide material[s] for [Mr. Ford]

to distribute. Even if the Referee would find [C]laimant’s testimony 

credible that she was at the [Central Market] event, [C]laimant 

admittedly did not perform the job responsibilities she was required [to 

perform] by distributing material[s] at the event as she informed 

[E]mployer she had done. Based on the discrepancy in [C]laimant’s 

own testimony, the Referee concludes that [C]laimant’s testimony is 

not credible. The Referee finds [E]mployer’s testimony credible that 

[C]laimant was untruthful regarding her activity at the event and 

untruthful whether or not she even attended the Central Market 

sponsored event [where] she was supposed to promote [E]mployer by 

distributing materials on behalf of the company. As such, [C]laimant’s 

 

5 With regard to Claimant’s eligibility for UC benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law, 

the Referee concluded, “[B]oth [C]laimant and [E]mployer competently testified that [C]laimant 

accepted [the opportunity] to submit her resignation in lieu of a discharge. Since [C]laimant’s 

separation was not voluntary, a finding under Section 402(b) of the Law does not apply.” Ref.’s 

Order, 10/30/18, at 3. This determination is not at issue in this appeal.
8

behavior was contrary to the standards of behavior which [E]mployer 

has the right to expect and [UC] benefits are denied.

Ref.’s Order, 10/30/18, at 3-4.

Claimant timely appealed to the Board, which remanded the matter to the 

Referee for a supplemental hearing. Specifically, the Board directed the Referee to 

take additional evidence on Claimant’s reason for her non-appearance at the October 

23, 2018 hearing, as well as additional testimony and evidence on the merits. Bd.’s 

Remand Order, 1/11/19, at 1.

Following the remand hearing, the Board made its own findings of fact and

conclusions of law and reversed the Referee’s decision. The Board concluded:

[E]mployer presented credible evidence that it maintains a policy that 

prohibits making false claims or statements about [Employer], [its] 

employees[,] or [its] members. [E]mployer also established that 

[C]laimant was aware of the policy. [E]mployer presented [the] 

testimony of three witnesses that had gone to [Central M]arket on 

August 21, 2018. These witnesses testified that they did not see 

[C]laimant or [Mr. Ford] at the market. Thus, [E]mployer sought to 

prove that [C]laimant made false statements regarding her whereabouts 

that day through circumstantial evidence. It relied upon its witnesses’

failure to see [C]laimant at the location. However, the Board accepts 

[C]laimant’s testimony as credible that she was at the market on August 

21, 2018, networking with vendors and potential customers, and that 

she handed out [E]mployer’s [promotional] items. The Board also 

accepts that [Claimant] visited a vendor outside of the market while 

[E]mployer’s witnesses were there. Further, [C]laimant left 

promotional materials for [E]mployer at the market after [E]mployer’s 

witnesses had left. Therefore, the Board does not find that [C]laimant 

made false statements or violated [E]mployer’s policies.
9

Bd.’s Order, 5/7/19, at 3-4. Therefore, the Board concluded that Claimant was not 

disqualified from receiving UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. Employer 

now petitions for review of that decision.6

Analysis

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 proof, then “the burden shifts to the 

claimant to demonstrate good cause for violating the [policy].” Chester Cmty. 

Charter Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2016).

On appeal, Employer asserts that the Board capriciously disregarded 

uncontroverted evidence establishing that Claimant left the Box Lunch Review event 

while she was required to be present and working for Employer. Employer 

maintains that Claimant was expected to network at Central Market for the entire 

 

6 Our scope of review is limited to determining whether the necessary factual findings are 

supported by substantial evidence, whether an error of law was committed, or whether 

constitutional rights were violated. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 

704.
10

Box Lunch Review event and her failure to do so, as well her misrepresentations 

regarding the work she performed, violated its policies. We disagree.

Our Court has explained:

Capricious disregard “occurs where the fact finder willfully and 

deliberately disregards competent and relevant evidence that one of 

ordinary intelligence could not possibly have avoided in reaching a 

result.” Wise v. Unemployment Comp[.] B[d.] of Review, 111 A.3d

1256, 1262 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2015). More specifically, a capricious

disregard of evidence occurs “where the factfinder has refused to 

resolve conflicts in the evidence, has not made essential credibility 

determinations or has completely ignored overwhelming evidence 

without comment.” Id. at 1263. It is the responsibility of the factfinder 

to resolve the conflicts in the testimony and explain why it has accepted, 

or rejected, each piece of relevant evidence. Id.

Bertram v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 206 A.3d 79, 83 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

2019).

Employer contends that Claimant’s testimony that she was present at Central 

Market on the day in question was “false in light of [Claimant’s] admissions at the 

[h]earing” and the testimony of Employer’s witnesses that they did not see Claimant

“when they were present for 70 minutes at . . . Central Market.” Employer’s Br. at 

15. However, as the Board correctly found, Employer did not discharge Claimant 

for falsely stating that she was present at Central Market for a specified period of 

time, but for falsely stating that she was present at Central Market at all. Bd.’s F.F. 

No. 11; see R. Item No. 5 (Employer’s disciplinary record states that Claimant was 

discharged for her “failure to appear at Central Market for the Box Lunch Review[,]

which was a scheduled [m]arketing event”) (emphasis added). Here, Claimant

credibly testified that she was working for Employer inside Central Market from

11:30 a.m. until 12:00 p.m. and again from 1:00 p.m. until 2:00 p.m. during the Box 
11

Lunch Review event. Bd.’s F.F. Nos. 5, 6. Simply because Employer’s witnesses

did not see Claimant during their visit to Central Market that day does not render 

Claimant’s statement false, because the record shows that Claimant and Employer’s 

witnesses were not inside Central Market at the same time. See Bd.’s Order, 5/7/19, 

at 4 (finding that Claimant “visited a vendor outside of the market while 

[E]mployer’s witnesses were there”).

Despite its assertion on appeal that Claimant was required to be stationed 

inside Central Market during the entire Box Lunch Review event, Employer 

presented no evidence that Claimant was prohibited from taking a break during the 

event. Indeed, it is entirely reasonable that Claimant would take a lunch break at 

some point between 11:30 a.m. and 2:00 p.m., particularly where the record shows

that she had come directly from working at another Employer-sponsored marketing 

event, which ran from 7:00 a.m. to 11:00 a.m. Claimant testified:

We had just come from another event that morning, where we had seen 

approximately . . . 1,200 people. It was a very intense event. I was 

exhausted. My staff was exhausted. We were both hungry. Because 

the [Box Lunch Review] event had been changed [to] inside, it sort of 

goes from, you know, high profile to low profile, when the event is 

changed from outdoors to indoors[,] because we don’t have room to set 

up a table.

N.T., 10/22/18, at 10; see also id., Ex. E-1 (Ms. Baker’s notes state that Employer’s 

“Marketing Team ([Claimant and Mr. Ford]) had an event at Central High School 

on Tuesday, August 21, 2018, and there was a calendar reminder 7am-11am for 

[Claimant and Mr. Ford]”).

Moreover, although Claimant left Central Market for one hour during the Box 

Lunch Review event, she credibly testified that she went to a vendor “just outside” 

the market and was still networking for Employer during that timeframe. Claimant
12

testified, “I walked to York City Pretzel, which is just outside of the market, to just 

do some general networking with the business owners there, as we were featuring 

one of them in our upcoming newsletter” and “[a]fter that, I met up with my staff, 

back inside the market.” N.T., 10/22/18, at 11 (emphasis added). Claimant also 

testified that while she was at York City Pretzel, “I spoke with one of the business 

owners there and a few other people had come in the door, [who] were also having 

lunch[,] that I recognized. So, I would say it was kind of a healthy lunch [and] also 

networking, which is very typical for me[] whenever I do have lunch . . . at the 

market.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added).

Furthermore, Claimant testified that Mr. Ford reported that he had also 

networked for Employer during his lunch break, stating that “he had talked to one of 

the vendors down on the other side of the market, who is a credit union member.” 

Id. at 15. Claimant testified that Mr. Ford “ended up talking to . . . some business 

owners and things like that, which is essentially the exact same thing that I was 

doing.” Id. at 14 (emphasis added).

7

 The Board credited Claimant’s testimony and 

found that she did, in fact, perform marketing work for Employer during the Box 

Lunch Review event. Bd.’s F.F. Nos. 5, 6; see Guthrie v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. 

of Review, 738 A.2d 518, 521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (stating that the Board is the 

 

7 Claimant explained:

[I]t’s such a casual event and we ha[ve] numerous White Rose Credit Union 

members [there], we always have people that want to stop us and talk to us . . . . 

We sort of call it our shaking hands and kissing babies networking time. [W]e have 

members that . . . want to ask us questions about a specific loan. They want to ask 

us questions about . . . their brother, sister, [or] uncle becoming a member. Or, they 

want to sit and tell us their life story, which is perfectly acceptable and very standard 

when you’re doing those kinds of events.

N.T., 10/22/18, at 15.
13

ultimate factfinder in UC cases and is empowered to resolve conflicts in evidence, 

determine the weight to be accorded the evidence, and determine the credibility of 

witnesses).

Employer also contends that Claimant intentionally omitted a material fact by 

failing to disclose to Employer that she took a one-hour lunch break during the Box 

Lunch Review event. This claim, however, is belied by the record. According to 

Ms. Baker’s notes of her conversation with Claimant about the incident, Claimant 

told Ms. Baker that she “spent time outside [of Central Market] visiting all [of] their 

regulars (the guy with the dog, the guy in the wheelchair, the daycare with kids) . . .

[and] went to York City Pretzel[].” N.T., 10/22/18, Ex. E-2.

Finally, Employer argues that the Board failed to resolve the conflicts in 

Claimant’s testimony regarding whether she distributed Employer’s promotional 

materials inside Central Market during the Box Lunch Review event. We disagree. 

In its decision, the Board noted the conflicts in Claimant’s testimony regarding this 

issue and ultimately determined that she handed out promotional materials to Box 

Lunch Review patrons before her lunch break and placed promotional materials on 

tables inside Central Market after lunch. Bd.’s F.F. No. 6. The Board observed that

at the remand hearing, Claimant testified that she had placed promotional materials 

on tables before lunch, but the Board found that to be “a minor inconsistency” and

irrelevant to the issue of whether Claimant was performing work for Employer at 

Central Market on the day in question. We agree with the Board. Claimant 

consistently testified at both hearings that she worked for Employer during the Box 

Lunch Review event on August 21, 2018, both by networking with patrons and 

vendors inside and outside Central Market and by handing out promotional materials 

to patrons before and after her lunch break. Claimant also continued to network with 
14

nearby vendors and other patrons during her lunch break. Therefore, we conclude 

that the Board did not capriciously disregard competent evidence.

Conclusion

We conclude, based on the credible evidence of record, that Employer failed 

to prove that Claimant violated its policies prohibiting false statements and 

unsatisfactory work performance. Accordingly, we affirm the Board’s Order.

________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

White Rose Credit Union, :

Petitioner :

:

v. : No. 694 C.D. 2019

:

Unemployment Compensation Board :

of Review, :

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 6

th day of January, 2020, the Order of the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review, dated May 7, 2019, is hereby AFFIRMED.

_________________________________

ELLEN CEISLER, Judge