Court Opinion

ID: 9406949
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-05 14:07:24.258524+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:34.298333
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Falls Township,                :
                               :
                    Petitioner :
                               :
            v.                 : No. 1458 C.D. 2021
                               : Submitted: December 9, 2022
Unemployment Compensation      :
Board of Review,               :
                               :
                    Respondent :

BEFORE:       HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
              HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
              HONORABLE LORI A. DUMAS, Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION
BY JUDGE WOJCIK                                                   FILED: July 5, 2023

              Falls Township (Employer) petitions for review of the Order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which adopted and
incorporated a Referee’s findings of fact, as amended, and conclusions of law in a
Decision granting unemployment compensation (UC) benefits to Stephanie A.
Metterle (Claimant), on the basis that she is not ineligible for UC benefits pursuant
to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law).1 We affirm.
              Claimant was employed as a police officer by Employer from October
2009, to October 21, 2020. Employer’s work policy requires honesty, and Claimant
was aware of the policy. On March 28, 2019, Claimant filed a complaint with the

       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 in relevant part: “[A]n employe shall be ineligible
for compensation for any week . . . [i]n which [her] unemployment is due to [her] discharge or
temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with [her] work . . . .” 43 P.S.
§802(e).
Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC)/Pennsylvania Human
Relations Commission (PHRC) alleging, inter alia, Sex Discrimination, Pregnancy
Discrimination, and Retaliation by Employer’s Police Department (Department) in
violation of Section 5(a) and (d) of the Pennsylvania Human Relations Act.2 See
Certified Record (CR) at 187-88.
               In the complaint, Claimant stated, in relevant part:

               12. By way of further example, in February 2018, I was
               removed from the Major Incident Response Team
               (“MIRT”) and replaced by a male officer on the team.
               When I asked why I was no longer a part of the team,
               [then] Lieutenant Whitney told me I had never been a part
               [of] MIRT, despite me attending MIRT training and
               previously working on MIRT details.
CR at 185. The complaint also included an unsworn verification executed by
Claimant, which provided that statements contained in the complaint are true and
correct to the best of her knowledge, information, and belief. See id. at 189.
Claimant was discharged on October 21, 2020, for violating Employer’s policy by
purportedly falsifying her EEOC/PHRC complaint and Conduct Unbecoming an
Officer. See id. at 13, 16.
               On October 25, 2020, Claimant submitted a claim for UC benefits. On
March 29, 2021, the UC Service Center mailed a Notice of Determination that
Claimant was not entitled to benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. See CR at
30-35. Claimant appealed the Service Center’s Determination to a Referee.
               On August 2, 2021, a hearing was conducted before the Referee.
Claimant testified at the hearing in support of her claim for benefits. See CR at 132-
33, 152-63. Employer presented the testimony of Sergeant Christopher Clark and

      2
          Act of October 27, 1955, P.L. 744, as amended, 43 P.S. §955(a) and (d).
                                                2
Chief Nelson Whitney in opposition to the claim for benefits. See id. at 129, 133-
52, 163-66. Claimant and Employer also introduced a number of documents into
the record in support of their respective positions. See id. at 96-122, 170-95.
             With respect to her participation as a MIRT member and her statements
in the EEOC/PHRC complaint, Claimant testified, in pertinent part, as follows:

             [Q] Okay, and at some point in 2011, did you become
             aware of an opportunity to participate in the MIRT []?
             [A] I did.

             [Q] And how did you learn about it?
             [A] Lieutenant Ward sent an e-mail asking for
             volunteers for the Bucks County [MIRT].

             [Q]   Okay, and did you respond to that e-mail?
             [A]   I did.

             [Q] Okay, and did you indicate -- what did you indicate
             regarding your interest in MIRT?
             [A] I indicated that I was interested in becoming a
             member of the MIRT [].

                                        ****

             [Q] Okay. Were you sent for any training? Actually,
             let me -- go ahead, were you sent for any training after . . .
             [A] I was.

             [Q]   . . . you submitted your request. Okay.
             [A]   Yes.

             [Q] Tell us a little bit about the training.
             [A] It was two different trainings. There was a two-day
             training that I attended in Philadelphia with six or seven
             other officers. And it was all, you know -- obviously, we
             were talking to each other, and it was all these same
             officers who responded to that e-mail from Lieutenant
             Ward, and that they all wanted to be members of the MIRT
             []. And we drove down together and we went to the

                                           3
training and it was about riot control and some, you know,
tactics that you would use to control large crowds of
people in Philadelphia.

                          ****

[Q] Okay. Did you respond to any large-scale incidents
as part of the MIRT []?
[A] I did.

[Q] And what was that?
[A] When President Barack Obama came to Falls
Township in April 2011. I did attend that along with other
MIRT members.

                          ****

[Q] Okay. At any point after you had expressed your
interest to join MIRT, were you issued any special
equipment?
[A] I was.

[Q]   What . . .
[A]   I was issued a baton . . .

[Q]   . . . were you issued?
[A]   . . . sorry. A baton and a helmet.

[Q] Okay, and were any other officers issued those same
items?
[A] Yeah, there were a few other officers that were
issued these items. In fact, [] when I was issued the items,
some of the guys made a joke because the front of the
helmet said S/M for small[/]medium, but they’re also my
initials. So guys made like jokes about like, oh, did you
get yourself engraved, like, maybe I’ll take it at the same
place that you took yours, you know -- just, you know,
making a joke of it. So I just kind of remember that. It
sticks out [in] my head as something because of the fact
that it’s [my initials] or small[/]medium.

                          ****

                             4
[Q] Now, tell us about -- let’s go to 2018, Eagles won
the Super Bowl and there was a parade. At some point,
did you learn that the [T]ownship had sent some MIRT
members to work the Eagles parade?
[A] Yeah. After the fact, I learned that Falls Township
went down there.

[Q] And did you have any concerns when you found out
which officers went to respond?
[A] Yeah. Once I found out that [an officer] who was a
less senior officer than me went, I was concerned as to why
I wasn’t contacted prior to the parade to see if I was
interested in working that parade.

[Q] And why should you -- why should the
[D]epartment have contacted you to see if you were
interested in working the parade?
[A] Because I believe that I was a member of the MIRT
[]. And I would have been eligible for that overtime.

[Q] Okay. And you submitted an overtime slip; is that
correct?
[A] I did.

[Q] Okay. Now, Chief Whitney testified that he
conducted some investigation after you submitted your
overtime slip. Do you recall talking with Chief Whitney
at some point after you had submitted your MIRT
overtime request?
[A] Yes. I actually spoke with him prior to submitting
the request just to clarify that the information that I was
receiving from other officers that these three guys went
down to the parade and they were obviously talking about
it because, you know, everyone [is] an Eagles fan and
everything they got to see, you know, whoever NFL or
whatever. I wanted to make sure that I had my information
correct before I submitted anything. So I spoke with him
prior to submitting it and then, you know, multiple times
afterwards.

                         ****

                            5
[Q] Okay, and you were paid for that missed overtime -
- that missed MIRT overtime assignment; correct?
[A] Correct.

[Q] Okay, and the -- after -- I say a month or so after,
did you receive a memo from then Lieutenant Whitney
regarding the members of the MIRT?
[A] Yes.

[Q] Okay, and was your name included as a MIRT
member?
[A] No, it was not.

[Q] Okay, and did you send [then] Lieutenant Whitney
an e-mail after you received that memo?
[A] I did . . .

[Q]   And a . . .
[A]   . . . asked him if . . .

[Q] Go ahead.
[A] I asked him if it was the official notice of their
removal from the MIRT [], you know, like I said, we had
spoken numerous times in between this. So there was
never any formal verification or non-verifications of my
membership.

[Q]   Okay, and so . . .
[A]   And . . .

[Q] . . . in the entire period of time. Go ahead, Officer.
[A] In the meantime, while we’re talking, there’s no
formal verification or non-verification, they also, in the
meantime, paid me for the MIRT overtime.

[Q] Sure. And so in this period of time, February,
March 2018, do you believe that you were on the MIRT
[]?
[A] Yes.

[Q] Okay, and after [then] Lieutenant Whitney told you
hey, you’re not on the MIRT [], did you accept that as his
decision?
                                 6
[A] Yeah. I accepted his, you know, that he was saying
I’m no longer on the -- on, you know, that I’m not on the
MIRT []. That’s what his e-mail said, so.

                         ****

[Q] Okay. When you made this allegation [in paragraph
12 of the EEOC/PHRC complaint], as you were removed
from the [MIRT], in March of 2019 when you’re making
this allegation, did you believe that you had been removed
from the MIRT [] back in 2018?
[A] Yes.

[Q] Okay, and so is that statement true and correct to the
best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
[A] Yes.

                         ****

[Q] Okay. And so when you made that allegation, did
you believe that you had been replaced on the MIRT [] by
[another male officer]?
[A] Yes.

[Q] And so, would that statement [be] true and correct
to the best of your knowledge, information, and belief?
[A] Yes, it was.

[Q] Okay. You go on in allegation 12 to note this
interaction you had with [then] Lieutenant Whitney.
When I asked why I was no longer part of the team, [then]
Lieutenant Whitney told me I had never been a part of
MIRT. Okay. And so in March of 2019, when you were
making this allegation, that’s correct, right? You would -
- you had asked why you were no other part of the team
and he told you were never part of MIRT; correct?
[A] Yes.

[Q] Okay, and then you say, you know, despite me
attending MIRT training, and previously working on
MIRT details, first, what training are you talking about?

                            7
             [A] The training that myself and the other officers that
             all responded to the e-mail were sent to in 2012 in
             Philadelphia.

             [Q]   And what MIRT details?
             [A]   The Obama detail.

             [Q] Okay. And so, if we move forward, at the end of
             your complaint, you signed a verification form. . . . And
             then your verification, this applies to the whole thing, but
             it includes paragraph 12. You verified that the statements
             contained in the complaint are true and correct to the best
             of your knowledge, information, and belief and that
             applied to paragraph 12; right?
             [A] Yes.

             [Q]   Okay. Were you lying in paragraph 12?
             [A]   No.
CR at 152-53, 154-55, 156-58.
             With respect to Claimant’s participation in MIRT and payment for
overtime for a MIRT detail, Chief Whitney testified, in relevant part, as follows:

             [Q] [] Chief, . . . you testified that in 2018, you were
             assigned to investigate an overtime submission that had
             been submitted by [Claimant]; correct?
             [A] Yes.

             [Q] Okay. Would that have been February of 2018?
             [A] Yes. That’s the overtime related to the Eagles Super
             Bowl parade.

             [Q] And the Eagles Super Bowl parade had [the]
             Township deployed some of its MIRT members to
             respond to the Eagles parade; correct?
             [A] Yes.

             [Q] Okay, and [Claimant] submitted an overtime
             request for payment for that because in her view, she was
             bypassed and the [D]epartment sent a less senior MIRT
             member to respond to the Eagles parade; correct?
             [A] Yes.
                                          8
[Q] Okay, and so [Claimant] said she was on the MIRT
[]. She should have worked that detail. And you were
assigned to investigate that claim; correct?
[A] Yes.

[Q] All right.         You testified regarding your
investigation, [Claimant] was paid overtime for that
Eagles parade; correct?
[A] Yes, she was paid in error. That’s correct.

[Q] Okay. She was paid though, right? She submitted
a request for MIRT overtime. You investigated it, and
then she was paid; right?
[A] Yes. She was paid in error because a lieutenant that
reviewed the [s]lip sent it through.

[Q] Did you res[cind] -- did the Township go back and
rescind their payment?
[A] Well, I recommended to the chief that he make her
pay it back, but he didn’t take my recommendation.

[Q] Okay. So the chief of police didn’t rescind any
MIRT payment made to [Claimant] for the Eagles parade;
correct?
[A] That is correct.

[Q] Okay, and then in the wake of [Claimant’s] Eagles
parade overtime submission, you sought clarity from the
[C]ounty on who was -- who the active members of the
MIRT [] were; is that correct?
[A] Yes.

                         ****

[Q] Okay. Now, the reason you did this, right, the
reason you clarified MIRT’s status was because at that
time, the Township did not have a standing roster of MIRT
[] members; correct?
[A] If anybody had a roster, I didn’t have it.
[Q] And you were assigned to -- earlier, you were
assigned to investigate a MIRT claim, right. And so you
talked to all the MIRT [] members. So, I would assume
                           9
that as part of your thorough investigation, if there was a
roster of MIRT [] members, you would have found it
there?
[A] Well, I mean, I would hope to. There’s some people
that retired that may have been involved in MIRT. Up to
that point in 2018, I had never had any involvement
whatsoever in MIRT. So it was all new to me, but if your
question to put a sharp point in it is did I find a roster, no,
I did not. That’s why one of the reasons I put that e-mail
out to clarify going forward, who was and who wasn’t on
MIRT.

                           ****

[Q] Okay. And if we look at . . . the very bottom e-mail
is your e-mail to all sworn personnel, and then we have
Officer Killeen’s response to you saying, with the
exception of this current list, I was not notified that I was
no longer on MIRT. You responded to him, I received the
information from Lieutenant Pennington. From what I can
tell, that is not unusual because MIRT has operated very
informally. That’s one of the reasons I put out the memo;
correct?
[A] Yes. In talking with Lieutenant Pennington, I
discovered that there were several officers who were all
MIRT at the time and then were on MIRT. And in talking
with them, it did seem informal that through time, they just
-- they were less active. Some of them got promoted from
positions. Some of them lost interest, but there didn’t
seem to be, you know, an ironclad paper trail of, hey, this
[Township] officer who was on MIRT, who went through
the, you know, at this point forward was no longer on
MIRT. That’s what my reference there is. . . .

                           ****

[Q] [] So, [C]hief, just to clarify, one part of the Eagles
[p]arade issue. Had [Claimant] been on the MIRT [] based
on your review, she would have been paid for that missed
overtime assignment; correct?
[A] Yes. If it’s -- if factually she had been on MIRT,
yes.

                              10
               [Q] Even though she hadn’t worked it, right, it was a
               seniority grievance, a less senior person went -- and if she
               was on MIRT and a less senior person went, the
               consequence for that is that she would get payment for that
               missed overtime assignment; right?
               [A] Yes.
CR at 145-47, 151; see also id. at 113, 195.
               On August 5, 2021, the Referee issued a Decision in which she made
the following relevant finding of fact:

               [C]laimant had reason to believe that she was part of
               MIRT, including attending what she thought was MIRT
               training, participating in events where MIRT was present,
               receiving gear not all officers received, and receiving
               compensation for a MIRT event that she complained she
               should have been a part of as a MIRT member, but was
               excluded from.
CR at 198.
               Based on the facts as found, the Referee stated the following
conclusions:

               [E]mployer’s various policies prohibit falsification or
               dishonesty, and [C]laimant was aware of the policies.
               [E]mployer discharged [C]laimant for allegedly falsifying
               a specific portion of her unsworn complaint to the
               EEOC/PHRC wherein she stated that she was a part of
               [E]mployer’s MIRT. [E]mployer alleges that she was
               never a part of MIRT, and therefore could not have been
               removed from it.

               [C]laimant believed that she was a MIRT member in part
               because she had been sent for what she believed was
               MIRT training, received MIRT equipment not provided to
               the regular police officers, and had attended at least one
               event with MIRT. Most importantly, [C]laimant had
               alleged that she was entitled to pay as a MIRT member for
               an event that [E]mployer had failed to offer her the
               opportunity to work, when [E]mployer should have.
               [E]mployer did not dispute her right to work the event or
                                           11
             MIRT status, and in fact paid her for the event like she had
             participated as a MIRT member. [C]laimant had reason to
             believe that she was a MIRT member, and therefore did
             not falsify her EEOC/PHRC complaint. Certainly, if there
             was a falsification, it was not deliberate.

             Furthermore, the EEOC/PHRC complaint requires only
             that she provide an unsworn verification that the
             information she alleges therein was true and correct to the
             best of her knowledge, information, and belief. She did
             not violate the unsworn verification required to submit the
             EEOC/PHRC complaint, and therefore did not falsify
             documentation, or otherwise act dishonestly, to justify a
             denial of benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law.
CR at 198-99.
             Accordingly, the Referee issued an order reversing the UC Service
Center’s Determination and granting benefits on the basis that Claimant is not
ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of the Law. See CR at 201. On
August 20, 2021, Employer appealed the Referee’s Decision to the Board. See id.
at 209-30.
             On December 1, 2021, the Board issued an Order affirming the
Referee’s Decision that states, in relevant part:

             The [Board], after considering the entire record in this
             matter, concludes that the [D]etermination made by the
             Referee is proper under the [Law]. Therefore, the Board
             adopts and incorporates the Referee’s conclusions. The
             Board numbers the Findings of Fact 1-6 as is customary.
             The Board amends Finding of Fact 3, changing “09” to
             “19.” The Board adopts and incorporates the remainder of
             the Referee’s findings.

             [E]mployer admitted at the hearing there was no “ironclad
             paper trail” and “it did seem informal . . . .” [E]mployer
             also admitted in an e[-]mail “MIRT has operated very
             informally . . . .” The Board makes no conclusion on

                                          12
               whether [C]laimant actually ever was on the MIRT [], only
               that she had believed so.
CR at 253. Employer then filed the instant timely petition for review of the Board’s
Order.
               On appeal,3 Employer claims: (1) the Board “erred as a matter of law
and ignored the substantial weight of the evidence in determining that Claimant
believed that she was a part of the Bucks County [MIRT]” based on the evidence
that it presented demonstrating that she was not, in fact, a member of MIRT; and (2)
the Board erred as a matter of law in concluding that Claimant did not engage in
willful misconduct by falsely claiming that she was a member of MIRT in her
EEOC/PHRC complaint based on the foregoing Township evidence.
               Although the Law does not define the term “willful misconduct,” this
Court has observed:

               Our Supreme Court defines willful misconduct as
               behavior that evidences a willful disregard of the
               employer’s interests, a deliberate violation of the
               employer’s work rules, or a disregard of standards of
               behavior that the employer can rightfully expect from its
               employees. When asserting discharge due to a violation
               of a work rule, an employer must establish existence of the
               rule and its violation. The employer bears the initial
               burden of proving a claimant engaged in willful
               misconduct.[4] Whether a claimant’s actions rise to the

       3
          Our scope of review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated,
an error of law was committed, or the necessary factual findings are supported by substantial
evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. §704. “Substantial evidence
is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.”
Criswell v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 393 A.2d 1071, 1072 (Pa. Cmwlth.
1978).

       4
        As the burdened party, Employer had to meet both its burden of production and its burden
of persuasion to establish willful misconduct in this case. Kirkwood v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 525 A.2d 841, 844 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
                                                13
            level of willful misconduct is a question of law fully
            reviewable on appeal.

                    Further, the Board is the ultimate fact[]finder in
            [UC] 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 supports the Board’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 Industries, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 949
A.2d 338, 342 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (citations omitted). Consequently, the Board was
free to reject Employer’s evidence of Claimant’s purported willful misconduct, even
if it was unrebutted. Carriers Terminal Company v. Unemployment Compensation
Board of Review, 449 A.2d 873, 874 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982).
            As outlined exhaustively above, there is substantial evidence
supporting the Board’s determination that Claimant subjectively believed that she
was a member of MIRT, whether or not she ever actually was a member. As a result,
the Board did not err as a matter of law in determining that Claimant did not commit
willful misconduct by deliberately falsifying the EEOC/PHRC complaint.
Therefore, it is of no moment that Employer presented evidence which, if credited
and accepted, rebutted Claimant’s testimony and objectively demonstrated that
Claimant was not a part of MIRT.
            Accordingly, the Board’s order is affirmed.

                                       MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
Judge Fizzano Cannon did not participate in the decision of this case.
                                         14
         IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Falls Township,                :
                               :
                    Petitioner :
                               :
            v.                 : No. 1458 C.D. 2021
                               :
Unemployment Compensation      :
Board of Review,               :
                               :
                    Respondent :

                                ORDER

           AND NOW, this 5th day of July, 2023, the Order of the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review dated December 1, 2021, is AFFIRMED.

                                   __________________________________
                                   MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge