HARRISBURG – The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has upheld the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review’s decision to grant eligibility for benefits to a paralegal who was dismissed from her duties last year.
Commonwealth Court Judges Patricia A. McCullough, Andrew Crompton and Bonnie Brigance Leadbetter rendered the Court’s Oct. 19 decision, with Leadbetter writing the opinion.
“The employer, Chan & Associates, petitioned for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review that reversed the order of a referee. That referee had determined that claimant, Lori L. High, was ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits, because her actions constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm the order of the Board granting benefits,” Leadbetter said.
The facts as found by the Board are as follows: Claimant worked as a paralegal for employer, a law firm, from July 2013 to June 2019 at a final hourly rate of $26.92. Her job duties included scheduling, filing, answering the phone, billing, bookkeeping, and writing checks. Over the years, employer’s caseload grew thereby increasing claimant’s workload.
The employer’s owner, Wendy Chan, tried to enable claimant to keep up with the demands of her job, leading Chan to suggest that claimant stop answering the phones and close her office door to avoid distractions.
However, claimant answered the phone when no one else did so or she was the only employee in the office. Additionally, when claimant tried working with her door shut, “other employees would frequently knock to solicit her assistance.”
Chan also directed claimant “to relinquish some of her duties like billing and check-writing to a new legal assistant and give all divorce cases to the other paralegal.” However, the claimant “had to train the new legal assistant which limited the duties that she could relinquish.”
“Subsequently, problems ensued once employer approved claimant’s request to take vacation from July 1 through July 5, 2019, with a return date of July 8. ‘There were three court filing deadlines set to occur on or around July 1, 2019 and July 2, 2019,” per Leadbetter.
“As the Board found: One of the deadlines involved the filing of an expert report by July 1, 2019. Per Chan’s request, claimant contacted the client on June 28, 2019. The client responded that ‘treatment notes’ would be emailed to claimant the next day, at which time she would forward them to the other paralegal.”
The claimant told the other paralegal to be on the lookout for any client reports, and that she would forward the document to her when she received it. However, the client never emailed the report.
The employer blamed the claimant for not informing the other paralegal about a discovery deadline in the divorce case, and for not placing a deadline on the calendar to exchange exhibits and meet with opposing counsel in a separate custody case.
“After claimant returned from vacation, Chan met with her to discuss the situation. As a result, employer discharged claimant from employment ‘for the missed filing deadlines that had occurred during her vacation,” Leadbetter said.
“Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits and the Erie Unemployment Compensation Service Center found her to be eligible for benefits. Following a hearing at which claimant, with counsel, and employer’s witnesses, Chan and a paralegal, appeared and testified, the referee reversed the eligibility determination.”
On appeal, the Board upheld the Erie Unemployment Compensation Service Center’s ruling. The employer then appealed that follow-up decision to the Commonwealth Court.
The employer bears the initial burden of proving that a claimant engaged in willful misconduct. Once the employer establishes a prima facie case of willful misconduct, the burden then shifts to the claimant to demonstrate good cause.
Leadbetter stated that the Board is the ultimate finder of fact in unemployment compensation cases with the power to determine credibility and evidentiary weight and that the court may not reweigh the evidence or overturn credibility determinations on appeal.
“We must view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party who prevailed before the Board, giving that party the benefit of all inferences that can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony,” Leadbetter said.
In the instant case, employer argues that claimant’s admitted failure to abide by its suggestions and directives over the course of several months resulted in her “missing important filing deadlines and constituted a wanton and willful disregard of its interests, a deliberate violation of its rules, and negligence indicating an intentional disregard of its interests or her duties and obligations.”
“Employer’s arguments constitute an improper attack on the Board’s determinations as to credibility and evidentiary weight. The Board accepted claimant’s version of the events surrounding her separation, concluding that she made reasonable efforts to improve her work performance and that employer’s directives were not always reasonable under the circumstances,” Leadbetter stated.
“As for the missed filing deadlines, which employer testified precipitated claimant’s involuntary discharge and arguably resulted from a failure to follow the aforementioned directives, the Board determined that employer failed to establish that any mistakes were of an intentional or deliberate nature rising to the level of willful misconduct.”
The Board rejected the referee’s application of a “heightened level” of care to paralegals that our Supreme Court rejected with respect to healthcare workers, and found that claimant should not be deemed solely culpable for the missed deadline, deciding that another fellow paralegal could have reached out to claimant or the client to inquire about the report.
“Further, the Board addressed the effect of employer’s directive to claimant to relinquish all of her duties relating to the firm’s divorce cases on its inclusion of a missed filing deadline in a divorce proceeding as a reason for termination. The Board concluded: “To state that claimant was instructed to relinquish her divorce case responsibilities, but then use her mistake in a divorce proceeding as a reason to fire her, is inconsistent,” Leadbetter said.
“As employer asserts, claimant’s scheduling duties might have included placing this deadline on the calendar. However, as we reiterate below, the Board determined that claimant’s mistakes were not intentional or deliberate but instead, the result of attempting to keep up with her increased workload.”
Leadbetter explained the Commonwealth Court would affirm the UCBR ruling granting benefits to High.
“Further, the Board addressed the effect of employer’s directive to claimant to relinquish all of her duties relating to the firm’s divorce cases on its inclusion of a missed filing deadline in a divorce proceeding as a reason for termination. The Board concluded: “To state that claimant was instructed to relinquish her divorce case responsibilities, but then use her mistake in a divorce proceeding as a reason to fire her, is inconsistent.’ Accordingly, we affirm,” Leadbetter said.
Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania case 8 C.D. 2020
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com