Court Opinion

ID: 9539222
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 14:09:43.633894+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T14:58:36.951202
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sean O'Leary,                                    :
                               Petitioner        :
                                                 :
                        v.                       :   No. 775 C.D. 2022
                                                 :   SUBMITTED: March 24, 2023
Unemployment Compensation                        :
Board of Review,                                 :
                    Respondent                   :

BEFORE:         HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, President Judge
                HONORABLE MICHAEL H. WOJCIK, Judge
                HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION BY
SENIOR JUDGE LEADBETTER                                             FILED: August 7, 2023

                Sean O’Leary, Claimant, petitions for review from the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, which affirmed the decision of the
Referee denying benefits pursuant to Section 402(e) of the Unemployment
Compensation Law, 43 P.S. § 802(e).1 This matter returns to us after remand to the
Board for consideration of the merits of this claim on the evidence already adduced.2
We reverse.
                The facts as found by the Board are as follows. (Bd. Decision & Order,
Findings of Fact “F.F.” Nos. 1-7.) Claimant was employed by Luzerne County
Community College, Employer, as a full-time security guard and his last day of work
was on December 12, 2019. Employer had issues with Claimant’s attendance and

    1
        Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e).

    2
      Op., O’Leary v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev. (Pa. Cmwlth., No. 984 C.D. 2020, filed
Oct. 27, 2021).
had provided him with a warning in October 2018. On October 22, 2019, Claimant
received a verbal warning about his attendance, after which he requested to be
transferred to the overnight shift, which Employer accommodated. On November
18, 2019, Employer gave Claimant a written warning about his attendance. The
Board found that during October and November 2019, Claimant was tardy or absent
eight to ten times. We discuss these findings, as well as what was not found by the
Board, infra.
                On December 9, 2019, Claimant was preparing to report for his shift
when he experienced a fast heart rate and dizziness and collapsed on the floor.
Claimant was unconscious and incapacitated on the floor for close to three hours and
has no recollection of that time. Claimant’s father found Claimant face down on the
floor and bloodied. Claimant’s father shook Claimant, waking him, and told him
that his supervisor was on the phone. Claimant grabbed the phone, apologized for
missing his shift, and explained that he had an “attack.” (Id., F.F. No. 5.) Claimant
failed to report to or call off from work on December 9, 2019, due to the above-
described events. On December 12, 2019, Employer suspended Claimant and, after
an investigation and a Loudermill hearing3 on January 3, 2020, discharged him due
to a continual pattern of tardiness and absences after warning.
                Claimant was initially found eligible for benefits by the Department of
Labor & Industry. Employer appealed and, due to connection problems, Claimant
was unable to attend the telephonic hearing before the Referee in late April 2020.
The Referee and the Board found Claimant ineligible for benefits based upon the
testimony of Employer alone. A second hearing was held to permit Claimant to

    3
       A Loudermill hearing is a pre-termination hearing given to a public employee that is
required by due process, as established in Cleveland Board of Education v. Loudermill, 470 U.S.
532 (1985).

                                              2
explain his failure to attend the initial hearing and to obtain evidence on the merits.
The Board determined that Claimant did not have good cause for his absence from
the first hearing and affirmed the Referee on that ground. This Court ultimately
vacated that decision and remanded for consideration of the merits of the case, to
include testimony adduced during the second hearing. On remand, the Board issued
a decision and order affirming the Referee’s decision to deny benefits on the merits.
Relying upon our decision in Grand Sport Auto Body v. Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review, 55 A.3d 186 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (en banc), the
Board determined that Claimant’s pattern of absenteeism and tardiness fell below
the standard of behavior Employer had a right to expect and was inimical to its
interest in completing work in a timely fashion, thus rising to the level of willful
misconduct. The Board concluded that Claimant was fired not solely for his final
absence, but for a pattern of tardiness and absenteeism, and that even if Claimant
had good cause for the final episode, his pattern rose to willful misconduct.
Claimant’s instant appeal to this Court followed.
             On appeal, Claimant contends that the Board erred in concluding that
there was willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Law. Section 402(e)
provides as follows: “An employe[e] shall be ineligible for compensation for any
week . . . [i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . from work for
willful misconduct connected with his work . . . .” 42 P.S. § 802(e). Claimant argues
that he had good cause for his final work absence on December 9, 2019, when he
had an illness that rendered him unconscious, and therefore that the evidence does
not support a conclusion of willful misconduct. Employer responds that, as the
Board concluded, it did not terminate Claimant solely due to his final absence, but
for a continual pattern of tardiness and absences.

                                          3
               Absenteeism, taken alone, does not generally amount to willful
misconduct. Vargas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 486 A.2d 1050, 1051 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 1985). An additional element, such as the lack of good cause for an
absence, is necessary. Runkle v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 521 A.2d 530,
531 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). An absence due to illness constitutes good cause and does
not constitute willful misconduct. Id. The burden of proving willful misconduct, so
as to render a petitioner ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, is on
the employer. Id.
               However, excessive absenteeism may, in some circumstances,
constitute willful misconduct. Grand Sport Auto Body, 55 A.3d at 190; Dotson v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 425 A.2d 1219 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981). Employers
have “the right to expect that . . . employees will attend work when they are
scheduled, that they will be on time, and that they will not leave work early without
permission.”      Grand Sport Auto Body, 55 A.3d at 190 [quoting Fritz v.
Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 446 A.2d 330, 333 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982)]. In
Grand Sport Auto Body, we reversed the Board’s determination that the claimant
was eligible for benefits, holding that a history of absenteeism and tardiness rose to
the level of willful misconduct despite the claimant’s last absence before discharge
being justified. Notably, in that case, “the Board did not find that [the] [e]mployer
discharged [the] [c]laimant for his [final] absence, which was excused. Rather, it
found that [the] [c]laimant was discharged based on his history of absenteeism and
tardiness.” Id. at 192 (emphasis original). In Grand Sport Auto Body, this Court
carefully reviewed the chronology of the claimant’s pattern of tardiness and
absenteeism and the several warnings tied to the various incidents. Id. at 190-92.
The claimant in question was terminated previously by Grand Sport Auto Body at

                                          4
the end of 2007 for excessive unexcused tardiness and absences and was then rehired
in January 2008. Id. at 190. Then in June 2010, the claimant received an initial
warning about tardiness and absenteeism, followed by a long string of documented
unexcused tardiness and absenteeism, with five episodes in September 2010, five in
October 2010, two in December 2010, five in February 2011, and three in March
2011. Id. at 190-91. This seven-month long string of unexcused tardiness and
absenteeism continued despite two written warnings, the second coming in
December 2010, and the employer’s attempts to assist the claimant in avoiding more
by changing his start time and offering to telephone him in the morning to make sure
he was awake. Id. at 192. The final unexcused absence was twelve days before the
claimant’s firing. The Board found credible the employer’s witnesses, one of whom
testified that the decision to fire the claimant had been made prior to his final,
excusable absence.
            In this case, the key finding by the Board of a pattern of absenteeism
was as follows:

            On October 22, 2019, . . . [C]laimant received a verbal
            warning for attendance, after which [he] requested to be
            transferred to the overnight shift, which . . . [E]mployer
            accommodated. During October and November, . . .
            [C]laimant had approximately 8-10 instances of tardiness
            and absenteeism. On November 18, 2019, . . . [E]mployer
            provided [him] with a written warning which included
            attendance.

(Bd. Decision & Order, F.F. No. 3.) The Board did not find, and the record does not
lend any support to, the proposition that there was a pattern of unexcused tardiness
and absenteeism after the written warning but prior to Claimant’s last day of work

                                         5
on December 12, 2019. Rather, the January 2, 2020 dismissal letter informing
Claimant of his termination reads as follows:

             Any further problems involving your work performance
             concerning the above items or any other violation of a
             standard of conduct which [Employer] has the right to
             expect of you will result in further disciplinary action up
             to and including termination of employment.

[Reproduced Record “R.R.” at 272a (emphasis supplied).] However, besides the
December 9, 2019 episode, which was justified by illness, Employer did not present
evidence of further problems. Similarly, the Board did not find that any of the eight
to ten episodes of tardiness and absenteeism in October and November 2019
occurred after the November 19, 2019 warning letter—and the evidence presented,
far from supporting such a finding, would contradict it. Kim Hogan, Employer’s
director of human resources, testified on cross-examination that the December 9,
2019 episode was the basis for Claimant’s termination:

             [Q]   All right. So, at that particular point in November of
                   2019, [Employer] did not act to terminate or
                   suspend [Claimant]. Is that right?

             [A]   Correct.

             [Q]   Okay. And so, the basis for his suspension and
                   termination in January of 2020 was the December
                   event, December 5th [sic] event, 2019. Is that
                   correct?

             [A]   I’m looking if that’s the date. That's correct.

(Notes of Testimony “N.T.” July 21, 2020 at 14, R.R. at 449a.) Ms. Hogan
confirmed that “[e]verything that [was] contained in the [termination letter] took

                                          6
place prior to his most recent discipline in November 2019, except the December
9th incident.” (Id.) On re-direct, Ms. Hogan answered “yes” to the following
question: “[T]he basis for the discipline and termination of . . . Claimant is that all
laid out in . . . the January 2nd, 2020 letter given to [Claimant]?” (Id.) Ms. Hogan
also answered the affirmative to the following question: “[a]nd isn’t it true that aside
from that, everything else had been identified to [Claimant] as a disciplinary matter
in November 2019 and did not lead [Employer] to suspend or terminate him at that
time?” (Id. at 17, R.R. at 452a.) Simply put, Employer did not see the previous
incidents of absenteeism as grounds for immediate termination because it stated only
that further incident(s) would warrant such disciplinary action. Thus, it is apparent
that the December 9, 2019 episode was the event that precipitated Claimant’s
termination.
               In light of the foregoing, we reverse.

                                         _____________________________________
                                         BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                         President Judge Emerita

                                            7
       IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Sean O'Leary,                        :
                     Petitioner      :
                                     :
                v.                   :   No. 775 C.D. 2022
                                     :
Unemployment Compensation            :
Board of Review,                     :
                    Respondent       :

                                  ORDER

           AND NOW, this 7th day of August, 2023, the order of the
Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is REVERSED.

                                   _____________________________________
                                   BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
                                   President Judge Emerita