Employer Must Present Substantial and Competent Evidence of an Employee's Violation of a Work Rule to Challenge the Employee's Request for Unemployment Compensation.

A common reason an employer will terminate an employee is when the employee violates a work rule. If the employee then files for unemployment compensation, and the employer contests the same, the issue in dispute is whether the employee acted in willful disobedience of an employer’s work rule. To establish willful disobedience of a work rule, the employer must prove: (1) the existence and reasonableness of a work rule; (2) the former employee knew of the work rule; and (3) the former employee violated the work rule. If the employer proves the existence of all three elements, the employee’s claim for unemployment compensation should be denied.

At the unemployment hearing, the employer must present competent and substantial evidence of the above elements of willful disobedience of a work rule. A recent Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case highlights the evidentiary burden on employers. In Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 2024 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 23 (January 17, 2024), the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review held, and the Commonwealth Court affirmed, that the employer did not present competent and substantial evidence to establish that the employee knowingly violated a work rule so as to amount to willful misconduct.

At the unemployment hearing, the employer’s manager, Evans, testified on behalf of the employer. However, Evans was not present at the incident and relied only on video without sound, as well as the customer’s written complaint about the employee, and Evans’ interview with the customer and a police officer who was called to the incident. The employer did not subpoena the customer to attend and testify at the hearing – thus Evans’ testimony about what the customer had told her, and the customer’s written complaint, were hearsay. The employer failed to subpoena the police officer who responded to the incident – thus Evans’ testimony about what the police officer told her was hearsay.

Hearsay is an out of court statement offered to prove the truth of the fact asserted in the statement. Hearsay is inadmissible at trial if it is objected to. A hearsay statement that is not objected to is still competent evidence and may form the basis for a finding of fact if it is corroborated by other competent evidence: “the law has long been settled that if specific evidence is central to an employer’s case for willful misconduct, the employer must either present that evidence through non-hearsay or corroborate any hearsay evidence with competent and substantial evidence; the failure to do so may result in an award of benefits.” Phila. Parking Auth. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 2024 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 23, *22.

The employer lost this case, and the employee was granted unemployment compensation benefits, because the employer failed to subpoena witnesses, including the customer and the police officer, to attend and testify at the unemployment hearing and thus to present direct evidence in support of the employer’s position. Further, the employer’s claim that it has presented direct evidence that corroborated its hearsay evidence was rejected. In short, when an employer contests an employee’s claim for unemployment compensation based upon willful violation of work rule, the employer must present direct evidence of the same and not rely upon hearsay evidence even if the hearsay evidence is not objected to.

If you have any questions about unemployment law, please do not hesitate to contact Scaringi Law at 717-657-7770 or scaringilaw.com