Court Opinion

ID: 9352732
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-01-09 17:08:55.88415+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T16:58:16.277249
License: Public Domain

IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Gingrich,                            :
                    Petitioner              :
                                            :
             v.                             :
                                            :
Unemployment Compensation                   :
Board of Review,                            :   No. 236 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent                 :   Submitted: October 21, 2022

BEFORE:      HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
             HONORABLE ELLEN CEISLER, Judge
             HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge

OPINION NOT REPORTED

MEMORANDUM OPINION BY
JUDGE COVEY                                              FILED: January 9, 2023

             Thomas Gingrich (Claimant) petitions this Court for review of the
Unemployment Compensation (UC) Board of Review’s (UCBR) February 14, 2022
order affirming the Referee’s decision that found Claimant ineligible for UC benefits
under Section 402(e) of the UC Law (Law).1 Claimant presents one issue for this
Court’s review: whether Claimant committed willful misconduct by improperly
wearing his face mask on August 26, 2020. After review, this Court affirms the
UCBR’s order.
             Rite Aid of Pennsylvania, Inc. (Employer) employed Claimant as a full-
time staff pharmacist from July 24, 2016 until September 7, 2020. Employer had a
face mask policy (Policy) requiring employees to wear face coverings. Claimant

      1
         Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §
802(e) (referring to willful misconduct).
was notified of the Policy. On August 4, 2020, Claimant received a final written
warning for various issues, including failure to follow the Policy. On August 26,
2020, Claimant was wearing his face mask under his chin, not covering his mouth
or his nose. Employer’s Lead Pharmacist asked Claimant if there was any reason
that he needed a face shield. Claimant indicated that there was no need for a face
shield. Claimant did not offer any explanation to Employer as to why he was not
properly wearing his face mask. Employer discharged Claimant for violating the
Policy.
              Claimant applied for UC benefits. On March 19, 2021, the Erie UC
Service Center determined that Claimant was eligible for UC benefits under Section
402(e) of the Law. Specifically, the UC Service Center concluded that, although the
facts indicated that Claimant’s actions constituted willful misconduct, Claimant had
shown good cause for his actions. Employer appealed and a Referee held a hearing
on May 28, 2021. On June 24, 2021, the Referee reversed the UC Service Center’s
determination, finding Claimant ineligible for UC benefits under Section 402(e) of
the Law. Claimant appealed to the UCBR. On February 14, 2022, the UCBR
adopted the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law, and affirmed the
Referee’s decision. Claimant appealed to this Court.2
              Initially,

              Section 402(e) of the Law provides that an employee is
              ineligible for [UC] 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 a[] [UC] case. Willful misconduct

       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.’ Miller v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev[.], 83 A.3d 484, 486 n.2 (Pa.
Cmwlth. 2014).” Talty v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 197 A.3d 842, 843 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2018).

                                               2
             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.

Sipps v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 181 A.3d 479, 481 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018)
(emphasis omitted) (quoting Dep’t of Transp. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev.,
755 A.2d 744, 747 n.4 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (citation omitted)).

             Where willful misconduct is based upon the violation of a
             work rule, the employer must establish the existence of the
             rule [and] its reasonableness, and that the employee was
             aware of the rule. Once employer meets this burden, the
             burden shifts to the claimant to prove that the rule was
             unreasonable or that he had good cause for violating the
             rule.

Sipps, 181 A.3d at 482 (quoting Weingard v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 26
A.3d 571, 574-75 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011) (citation omitted)).           Ultimately, “[t]he
question of whether conduct rises to the level of willful misconduct is a question of
law to be determined by this Court.” Scott v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 105
A.3d 839, 844 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2014).
             Claimant argues that his violation of the Policy did not rise to the level
of willful misconduct and, even if it did, he had good cause to violate the Policy.
             The law is well established:

             [I]n UC cases, the [UCBR’s] findings of fact must be
             supported by “[s]ubstantial evidence [which] is defined as
             ‘such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind would
             accept as adequate to support a conclusion.’” W[.] & S[.]
             Life Ins[.] Co. v. Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.],
             913 A.2d 331, 335 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (quoting Guthrie
             v. Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], 738 A.2d 518,
             521 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999)). ‘The [UCBR’s] findings are
             conclusive on appeal so long as the record, when viewed
                                            3
            in its entirety, contains substantial evidence to support the
            findings.’ W[.] & S[.] Life Ins[.] Co., 913 A.2d at 335.
            This Court is bound ‘to examine the testimony in the light
            most favorable to the party in whose favor the [UCBR] has
            found, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that
            can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony’
            to determine if substantial evidence exists for the
            [UCBR’s] findings.           U[.]S[.] Banknote Co. v.
            Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], . . . 575 A.2d 673,
            674 ([Pa. Cmwlth.] 1990). Moreover, ‘even if there is
            contrary evidence of record, the [UCBR’s] findings of fact
            are binding upon the Court where supported by substantial
            evidence.’ Borough of Coaldale v. Unemployment
            Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], 745 A.2d 728, 731 (Pa. Cmwlth.
            2000).

Naborn v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 246 A.3d 373, 379-80 (Pa. Cmwlth.
2021) (quoting Cambria Cnty. Transit Auth. (Cam Tran) v. Unemployment Comp.
Bd. of Rev., 201 A.3d 941, 947 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2019)).
            Here, Employer’s Policy required that each employee wear a face mask
over his/her nose and mouth and prohibited the face masks from being pulled down
under the chin or worn so that the employee’s mouth or nose is exposed. See
Reproduced Record (R.R.) at 94a-95a; see also Employer’s Ex. 6 (Ex. 6). The Policy
provided several exceptions to wearing a face mask, including a medical condition
that prevents the employee from wearing a face mask, while eating and drinking
with social distancing, when alone in a room with the door closed, and when
assisting a customer who is deaf or hard of hearing. See R.R. at 99a-100a; see also
Ex. 6. Where an employee is asserting a medical condition exception or when
assisting a deaf or hard of hearing customer, the Policy required the employee to
wear a face shield. See R.R. at 100a; see also Ex. 6. On August 4, 2020, Claimant
received a final written warning for various work issues, including his failure to
follow Employer’s Policy. See R.R. at 95a-96a; see also Employer’s Ex. 1.

                                         4
             Claimant testified:

             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:]           . . .
             [Claimant], did you ever ask for a face shield?
             C[laimant:] I did not ask for a face shield.
             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] Okay, and
             you received a prior warning for failure to follow []
             Employer’s . . . [P]olicy. Is that correct?
             C[laimant:] Yes ma’am.
             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] Okay, and
             did you ever provide any medical documentation stating
             that you were unable to wear your [face] mask properly?
             C[laimant:] No.
             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] Okay, and
             at the time that [Employer’s Lead Pharmacist] observed
             you on August the 26th of 2020, were you alone in a room?
             C[laimant:] No.
             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] Were you
             eating or drinking?
             C[laimant:] No.
             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] You were
             in the pharmacy area. Is that correct?
             C[laimant:] That is correct.

R.R. at 113a.
             In addition, regarding Claimant’s UC Questionnaire, Claimant
described:

             E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] You
             answered question #15 . . . [“D]id you comply with the
             Employer’s order or request[?”] and you answered
             [“]no[”] and you stated that it was difficult to wear a [face]
             mask at all times for 12 hour shifts. Is that correct?

                                            5
               C[laimant:] Yes.
               ....
               E[mployer’s] T[ax Consultant Representative:] Yes. So
               you answered that you had difficulty to wear [sic] a [face]
               mask at all times for 12 hour shifts, but at no time when
               you completed this form did you state it was due to any
               disability issues[3] or that you were advised by a doctor that
               you couldn’t wear a [face] mask. Is that correct?
               C[laimant:] I was never advised by a doctor about wearing
               a [face] mask, so that is correct.

R.R. at 115a.
               When further questioned by the Referee, Claimant related:

               R[eferee:] Okay. I just have just [sic] a few questions.
               [Claimant], you had received a final warning for not
               wearing a [face] mask, is that correct, properly [sic]?
               C[laimant:] I received a warning. Yes.
               R[eferee:] Okay, and would you agree that you weren’t
               wearing the [face] mask properly at the time of the
               warning?
               C[laimant:] I would disagree with the way it was stated
               on her paper. I believe I covered my -- I never wore my
               [face] mask under my chin the way it was described there.
               ....
               R[eferee:] Well [Claimant] did indicate he did not comply
               with the order, so I’m assuming there is some level of
               concern. And I’ll skip over that. At the time you got the
               warning, did you explain to [] Employer, look, my glasses
               are fogging up; I need to adjust my [face] mask?[4] Did
               you try to explain what was going on at that time?

       3
          Claimant asserted at the Referee hearing, inter alia, that the canes he uses for his partial
lack of use of his legs disability prevented him from pulling his face mask up, when it would fall
below his nose.
        4
          Claimant also asserted at the Referee hearing that his glasses fogging up was, inter alia,
a reason he would lower his face mask.
                                                  6
            C[laimant:] I did not.

R.R. at 116a-117a. The Referee concluded:

            In the present case, the credible testimony of [] [E]mployer
            establishes that it has a [P]olicy which required employees
            to wear a face[ ]mask. [] [C]laimant was aware of the
            [P]olicy and warned about his failure to follow it. []
            [C]laimant asserts that he has a physical disability in th[e]
            nature of a partial lack of use of his legs requiring him to
            use two canes to move around. It is not clear how this
            disability affected [] [C]laimant’s ability to properly wear
            his [face] mask. Moreover, even if [it] did[,] the [P]olicy
            requires an employee to wear a face shield if a medical
            condition precludes him from properly wearing a [face]
            mask.       Similarly, if an employee has problems
            communicating with a customer, the employe[e] can wear
            a face shield instead of a [face] mask. The Referee rejects
            [] [C]laimant[’s] assertion that he needed to adjust his
            [face] mask so that it was not covering [his] nose to
            properly read prescriptions as his glasses would
            sometimes fog from his breath. The credible testimony of
            [] [E]mployer establishes that [] [C]laimant’s [face] mask
            was not covering either his mouth or his nose. Further, if
            [] [C]laimant was having problems with his glasses
            fogging, he should have addressed that issue with []
            [E]mployer so it could determine a reasonable adjustment
            to the requirements of the [P]olicy. After being warned
            about violation of the [P]olicy, [] [C]laimant should not
            arbitrarily determine that he could remove his [face] mask
            from covering his nose and/or mouth without switching to
            a face shield. [] [C]laimant never provided [] [E]mployer
            with a reason he could not wear a [face] mask in the
            manner required by the [P]olicy. Therefore, [] [E]mployer
            has established that it discharged [] [C]laimant for actions
            that constitute willful misconduct connected with the
            work[,] and [UC] benefits will be disallowed under
            Section 402(e) of the Law.

R.R. at 123a.
            “The [UCBR] is the ultimate finder of fact; questions regarding the
weight of evidence and witness credibility are solely within its province.” Lowman
v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 235 A.3d 278, 286 n.8 (Pa. 2020). Here, the
                                         7
UCBR adopted the Referee’s findings of fact and conclusions of law. Viewing “the
testimony in the light most favorable to [Employer],” as we must, and “giving
[Employer] the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn
from the testimony,” this Court concludes that the UCBR’s findings of fact are
supported by substantial evidence. Naborn, 246 A.3d at 379. Accordingly, this
Court is constrained to affirm the UCBR’s order.
            For all of the above reasons, the UCBR’s order is affirmed.

                                      _________________________________
                                      ANNE E. COVEY, Judge

                                        8
            IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Thomas Gingrich,                      :
                   Petitioner         :
                                      :
            v.                        :
                                      :
Unemployment Compensation             :
Board of Review,                      :   No. 236 C.D. 2022
                 Respondent           :

                                  ORDER

            AND NOW, this 9th day of January, 2023, the Unemployment
Compensation Board of Review’s February 14, 2022 order is affirmed.

                                    _________________________________
                                    ANNE E. COVEY, Judge