IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lisamarie Tracey, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 378 C.D. 2016

Respondent : Submitted: October 7, 2016

BEFORE: HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, President Judge

HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

HONORABLE DAN PELLEGRINI, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY 

JUDGE COVEY FILED: December 19, 2016

Lisamarie Tracey (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the 

Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) February 12, 2016

order reversing the Referee’s decision granting Claimant UC benefits. The sole issue 

before this Court is whether the UCBR erred by determining that Claimant committed 

willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the UC Law (Law).1 After review, we 

affirm.

Claimant was employed as a full-time licensed practical nurse with 

Employer from September 9, 2013 through July 8, 2015. Employer maintained a 

Therapeutic Boundaries Agreement (Agreement) that required Employer’s treatment 

staff, including Claimant, to minimize self-disclosure to clients. Claimant signed the 

Agreement acknowledging her understanding of its terms which included the warning 

 

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

802(e) (referring to willful misconduct).
2

that “failure to abide by any of the above guidelines may result in immediate 

termination.” Original Record (O.R.) Item No. 3, 16A, Agreement at 1.

Employer provided grievance forms to clients so that clients could report 

unsatisfactory conditions or treatment. Employer required staff to immediately 

forward client grievance forms to Employer’s Program Director Jennifer Lembach 

(Lembach), or Employer’s Clinical Director. 

On February 16, 2015, Claimant received a verbal warning for violating 

the Agreement by sharing personal information about her son while discussing 

treatment with a client. Employer’s Eastern Region Director of Nursing Cynthia 

Campbell (Campbell), informed Claimant that “[Claimant] could not do that.” O.R. 

Item No. 8, Notes of Testimony, September 10, 2015 (N.T.) at 36. 

On June 11, 2015, during a disciplinary conference pertaining to an 

insubordination complaint against Claimant, Lembach noticed that Claimant was in 

possession of grievance forms dated June 8, 2011 that had not been submitted to 

Lembach or to Employer’s Clinical Director. Claimant could not clearly explain why 

she had not submitted the grievance forms as required.

Employer received a grievance on June 19, 2015, wherein a client 

reported feeling uncomfortable when Claimant talked about medication Claimant was

taking, and her belief that Employer was attempting to discharge her. When 

questioned by Employer’s management, Claimant admitted to speaking with the 

client about her son’s autism diagnosis and medication.

On July 14, 2015, Employer terminated Claimant’s employment for, 

inter alia, violating the Agreement, and failing to immediately submit client 

grievance forms.

Claimant applied for UC benefits. On August 10, 2015 the Scranton UC 

Service Center found Claimant ineligible for benefits under Section 402(e) of the 

Law. Claimant appealed and a Referee hearing was held. On September 11, 2015, 
3

the Referee reversed the UC Service Center’s Determination and granted Claimant 

UC benefits. Employer appealed to the UCBR. On February 12, 2016, the UCBR 

reversed the Referee’s Decision and found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits under 

Section 402(e) of the Law. Claimant appealed to this Court.2

Claimant argues that the UCBR erred in disregarding the Referee’s 

determinations that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits and that Employer did not 

meet its burden of establishing willful misconduct. We disagree.

This Court has explained that:

Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is 

ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits when 

his unemployment is due to discharge from work for willful 

misconduct connected to his work. The employer bears the 

burden of proving willful misconduct in an unemployment 

compensation case. Willful misconduct has been defined as 

(1) an act of wanton or willful disregard of the employer’s 

interest; (2) a deliberate violation of the employer’s rules; 

(3) a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer 

has a right to expect of an employee; or (4) negligence 

indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s 

interest or a disregard of the employee’s duties and 

obligations to the employer. 

Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 755 A.2d 744, 747 n.4 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2000) (citation omitted). Further, 

[w]hen an employee is discharged for violating a work rule, 

the employer must prove the existence of the work rule, the 

reasonableness of the rule, the claimant’s awareness of the 

rule, and the fact of its violation. The burden then shifts to 

the employee to prove that he or she had good cause for 

violating the rule. An employee establishes good cause by 

 

2

“Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, 

whether an error of law was committed, or whether the findings of fact were unsupported by 

substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa.C.S. § 704.” Turgeon v. 

Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 729, 731 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).
4

showing that his or her conduct was justified or reasonable 

under the circumstances. 

Adams v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 56 A.3d 76, 79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) 

(citations omitted). Moreover,

the [UCBR] is the ultimate fact-finder in unemployment 

compensation matters and is empowered to resolve all 

conflicts in evidence, witness credibility, and weight 

accorded the evidence. It is irrelevant whether the record 

contains evidence to support findings other than those made 

by the fact-finder; the critical inquiry is whether there is 

evidence to support the findings actually made. Where 

substantial evidence[3]supports the [UCBR’s] findings, they 

are conclusive on appeal. . . . [T]he prevailing party below[]

is entitled to the benefit of all reasonable inferences drawn 

from the evidence.

Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. 

Cmwlth. 2008) (citations omitted). 

Here, the UCBR found that Claimant committed willful misconduct by 

violating the Agreement and by not immediately submitting client grievances. With 

respect to whether Claimant violated the Agreement, Lembach explained the policy 

considerations behind the Agreement’s restriction on personal disclosure: “The basis 

of [Employer’s] program is focused on ethics and boundaries, one of which is not 

personal disclosure, so that’s a significant part of our training that we’re not to 

disclose personal information about ourselves with respect to client interaction.” 

N.T. at 12. Campbell testified that Claimant had received a verbal warning on 

February 16, 2015 for discussing personal matters with a client, and that Claimant

was informed that she was not thereafter to discuss herself or her son with clients.

 

3

“Substantial evidence is evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to 

support a conclusion.” Wheelock Hatchery, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 648 A.2d 

103, 105 n.3 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). 
5

Claimant admitted:

[Employer’s lawyer (]EL[):] . . . . [Campbell] has testified 

that it has been – or had been an ongoing discussion 

between you and her about whether it was appropriate to 

talk about your son or yourself. Do you remember having 

any of those conversations talking about your son or 

yourself with clients?

[Claimant:] I remember the conversation talking about my 

son and you said myself. I told her I did not talk about 

myself, but I did talk about my son.

EL[:] Okay. And did she tell you that you can’t do that, 

that that is against [Employer’s] policy?

[Claimant:] She told me I could not do that.

N.T. at 35-36 (emphasis added). Despite receiving this direction, Claimant admitted 

speaking with a client about her son’s autism.4 See N.T. at 31. 

Based on our review of the record, substantial evidence supports the 

UCBR’s findings that Employer proved the existence of the work rule prohibiting 

self-disclosure and its reasonableness, plus Claimant’s awareness of the work rule

and her violation thereof. Claimant did not demonstrate good cause for violating the 

rule. Accordingly, we hold that the UCBR properly found Claimant ineligible for UC 

benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.5

 

4 Claimant testified that she believed written orientation materials overrode Campbell’s

directions. See N.T. at 37. Notably, Claimant did not testify that she ever approached Campbell to 

seek clarification before simply disregarding Campbell’s orders.

5

Employer terminated Claimant’s employment for multiple reasons. However, Claimant is 

disqualified from receiving UC benefits so long as one of those reasons constitutes willful 

misconduct. See Anderson v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 485 A.2d 900 (Pa. Cmwlth. 

1985). Thus, we need not address whether Claimant’s failure to immediately submit client 

grievances constituted willful misconduct.
6

For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Lisamarie Tracey, :

Petitioner :

:

v. :

:

Unemployment Compensation :

Board of Review, : No. 378 C.D. 2016

Respondent :

O R D E R

AND NOW, this 19th day of December, 2016, the Unemployment 

Compensation Board of Review’s February 12, 2016 order is affirmed.

___________________________

ANNE E. COVEY, Judge