work rule in Pennsylvania

2023Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Melomed v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 972 A.2d 593, 594 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2022Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007).

2017“However, if the claimant fails to notify the employer about the absence in violation of a work rule, the absence may 6 constitute willful misconduct as a matter of law.” Bruce, 2 A.3d at 671 ; see also Anderson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 564 A.2d 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

2016A claimant must also be “made aware of the existence of the work rule.” Bruce v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 2 A.3d 667, 671 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).

2026Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Bishop Carroll High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

2026Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Bishop Carroll High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

2017Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 375, 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

2016Bd. of Review, 42 A.3d 375, 377 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

2026Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 827 A.2d 422, 425 (Pa. 2003). 7 Where the claimant is discharged for a work rule violation, the employer has the burden to show that the claimant was aware that the work rule existed and that the claimant violated the rule.

2021Grieb v. Unemployment Comp[.] B[d.] of Rev[.], . . . 827 A.2d 422, 426 ([Pa.] 2003) . . . . [T]his Court has on numerous occasions determined that a claimant’s use of work time to engage in personal affairs without authorization was willful misconduct even where not prohibited by a specific work rule because it was contrary to reasonable standards of behavior that an employer can expect from its employees.

2020McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 112, 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993).

2020McKeesport Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 625 A.2d 112, 114 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1993). “[W]e examine whether ‘the rule or policy is reasonable in light of all the circumstances, and if so, whether the employee [had] good cause to violate the rule or policy.’” Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 452, 456 (Pa. 1997) (quoting Spirnak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 451, 453 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989)).

2025“Where an employer seeks to deny UC benefits based on a work[ ]rule violation, the employer must prove the existence of a work rule, the reasonableness of the rule[,] and the employee’s violation of the rule.” Waverly Heights, 173 A.3d at 1228 (internal citation omitted).

2024“Where an employer seeks to deny UC benefits based on a work[] rule violation, the employer must prove the existence of a work rule, the reasonableness of the rule and the employee’s violation of the rule.” Waverly Heights, 173 A.3d at 1228 (internal citation omitted).

2021Board of Review., 703 A.2d 452, 456 (Pa. 1997), as (1) “wanton or willful disregard for an employer’s interests;” (2) “deliberate violation of an employer’s rules;” (3) “disregard for standards of behavior which an employer can rightfully expect of an employee;” or (4) “negligence indicating an intentional disregard of the employer’s interest or an employee’s duties or obligations.” In a case involving a work rule violation, the employer must establish the existence of the work rule, the reasonableness of the rule, the claimant’s knowledge of the rule, and its violation.

2017In reviewing the reasonableness of a work rule, we look to whether it “is reasonable in light of all the circumstances” and whether its application “is fair, just and appropriate to pursue a legitimate interest.” Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456-57 .

2025If an employer has discharged a claimant for violating a work rule, the employer must establish the existence of the rule, the claimant’s awareness of the rule, its reasonableness, and “the fact of its violation[.]” Id.

2023If an employer has discharged a claimant for violating a work rule, the employer must establish the existence of the rule, the claimant’s awareness of the rule, its reasonableness, and “the fact of its violation.” Id.

2020“When an employee is discharged for violating a work rule, the employer must prove the existence of the work rule, the reasonableness of the rule, the claimant’s awareness of the rule, and the fact of its violation.” Adams, 56 A.3d at 79 .

2016“When an employee is discharged for violating a work rule, the employer must prove the existence of the work rule, the reasonableness of the rule, the claimant’s awareness of the rule, and the fact of its violation.” Adams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 56 A.3d 76, 79 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012).

2026Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009); Bishop Carroll High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

2016Quoting Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 16 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009), Claimant further asserts that “[p]recedent teaches that taking actions to advance a patient’s health and safety will constitute good cause to violate an employer’s work rule.” Claimant’s Revised Br. at 24 (emphasis omitted).

2019Employer cites Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 13 A.3d 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), for the proposition that "[w]here an employer seeks to deny a discharged employee unemployment compensation benefits for a work rule violation pursuant to Section 402(e), the employer must prove only that the work rule existed and that the employee violated it." Employer's Brief at 10 (quoting Maskerines , 13 A.3d at 557 ).

2019Employer cites Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review , 13 A.3d 553 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011), for the proposition that "[w]here an employer seeks to deny a discharged employee unemployment compensation benefits for a work rule violation pursuant to Section 402(e), the employer must prove only that the work rule existed and that the employee violated it." Employer's Brief at 10 (quoting Maskerines , 13 A.3d at 557 ).

2019Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2018Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 369 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008).

2017The initial burden is on the employer to demonstrate the existence of a work rule, Yost v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 1158, 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), and to establish that the claimant engaged in willful misconduct in violation of that rule.

2017The initial burden is on the employer to demonstrate the existence of a work rule, Yost v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 42 A.3d 1158, 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012), and to establish that the claimant engaged in willful misconduct in violation of that rule.

2022Id.

2018It is well established that noncompliance with a work rule in itself does not amount to a "deliberate violation." Oyetayo , 110 A.3d at 1121 .

2021See, e.g., Pettyjohn v. Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], 863 A.2d 162, 165 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (holding that access of internet for personal reasons during working hours after being advised not to constituted willful misconduct); Baldauf v. Unemployment Comp[.] [Bd.] of Rev[.], 854 A.2d 689, 692 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004) (holding that the claimant engaged in willful misconduct by accessing personal email and non-work related websites while being paid to work)[.] Furthermore, ‘[a] conclusion that the employee has engaged in disqualifying willful misconduct is especially warranted in . . . cases wh

2017Ellis v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 59 A.3d 1159, 1162 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).

2015If a claimant is discharged for violating a work rule, the employer bears the initial burden of showing “the existence of a work rule and that the claimant violated the rule.” ATM Corporation of America v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 892 A.2d 859, 865 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).

2015If a claimant is discharged for violating a work rule, the employer bears the initial burden of showing “the existence of a work rule and that the claimant violated the rule.” Id.

2016Id. at 1148-49 .

2015Bell Socialization Services, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 74 A.3d 1146, 1147 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013).3 If the employer satisfies its initial burden, which is undisputed in this case, the burden then shifts to the employee to demonstrate good cause for her actions.

2026Bd. of Rev., 690 A.2d 805, 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (holding that a claimant did not have good cause to violate an employer’s work rule where an alternative means to address concerns existed)).) 9 Pursuant to Section 402(e) of the UC Law “[a]n employe shall be ineligible for compensation for any week . . . . [i]n which [their] unemployment is due to [their] discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with [their] work . . . .” 43 P.S. § 802(e) (emphasis added).

2017Arbster v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 690 A.2d 805, 810 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).

2022Tongel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

2015“A work rule violation need not be shown where the behavior standard is obvious, and the employee’s conduct is so inimical to the employer's best interests that discharge is a natural result.” Tongel v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 501 A.2d 716, 717 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985).

2018A claimant establishes good cause for violating a work rule by showing that his or her action was “justifiable or reasonable under the circumstances.” Frumento, 351 A.2d at 634 .

2017Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 351 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 1976).

2017Eagle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 659 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

2017Eagle v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 659 A.2d 60 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995).

2023“Inconsistent enforcement of a work rule defeats the existence of the work rule.” Allen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 189 A.3d 1128, 1136 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (internal citations omitted).

2020Our jurisprudence recognizes that “[i]nconsistent enforcement of a work rule defeats the existence of the work rule.” Allen v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 189 A.3d 1128 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2018) (citing City of Beaver Falls v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 441 A.2d 510 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982)).