Already have an account? Sign in instead.
You stay signed in for 30 days on this browser.
Continue with Google Continue with MicrosoftNo account yet? Create a free one.
We sent a six-digit code.
It expires in ten minutes, works once, and only in this browser. Five wrong tries void it. Send another code.
Your account is live and the Cloudflare checks are off for this browser.
37 Pennsylvania opinions name it 1 courts 1983–2019 0 in the last five years
The cases below were cited by Pennsylvania courts in a sentence that names this issue. Sides come from how each citing opinion treated the case (Syfertize flag on that citation), so a case can appear on both: that is where the law is contested. A red or yellow chip is the case's own overall treatment.
| Case | Followed | Cited |
|---|---|---|
Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2019Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). 2019Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). | 8 | 8 |
Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2018Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 755 A.2d 729, 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). 2016Daniels v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 755 A.2d 729, 731 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000). | 3 | 4 |
Frumento v. UNEMP. COMP. BD. OF REV.green2 sentences2018Bd. of Review, 351 A.2d 631, 634 (Pa. 1976) (recognizing that an employee’s refusal to comply with an employer’s reasonable request, without good cause, is a disregard of the standards of behavior that the employer has a right to expect of its employee). 1987See Frumento v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 466 Pa. 81 , 351 A.2d 631 (1976). | 2 | 3 |
Brunson v. COM., UNEMPLOYMENT BD.green2 sentences2016Guthrie, 738 A.2d at 521 ; Brunson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 570 A.2d 1096, 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). 2015Guthrie, 738 A.2d at 521 ; Brunson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 570 A.2d 1096, 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). | 2 | 3 |
Chester Cmty. Charter Sch. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Reviewgreen2 sentences2019Bd. of Review, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). 2019Bd. of Review, 138 A.3d 50, 54 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016). | 2 | 2 |
Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2017Maskerines v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 13 A.3d 553, 557 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). 2014Maskerines, 13 A.3d at 557 (holding that, because the claimant was discharged for a work rule violation under section 402(e) of the Law, the employer was not required to show that the claimant’s possession of marijuana off-premises directly affected his job performance); see Derry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 693 A.2d 622, 624-25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (holding that the claimant’s off- duty conduct violated the employer’s reasonable work rule and rendered him ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Law).11 Claimant also asserts that the evidence establishes that Employ | 2 | 2 |
Derry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2016A reasonable work rule is one which is fair and just under the circumstances “and appropriate to accomplish a legitimate interest of the employer.” Derry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 693 A.2d 622, 625 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997). 2014Maskerines, 13 A.3d at 557 (holding that, because the claimant was discharged for a work rule violation under section 402(e) of the Law, the employer was not required to show that the claimant’s possession of marijuana off-premises directly affected his job performance); see Derry v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 693 A.2d 622, 624-25 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997) (holding that the claimant’s off- duty conduct violated the employer’s reasonable work rule and rendered him ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Law).11 Claimant also asserts that the evidence establishes that Employ | 2 | 2 |
Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen2 sentences2016Walsh v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 943 A.2d 363, 368 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). 2015Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456 ; Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369-70 ; Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571-72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). | 1 | 2 |
Pallet v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2018Bd. of Review, 707 A.2d 636, 638 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998). 5 If the employer satisfies its burden of proving “the existence of a reasonable work rule and its deliberate violation, [then] the burden shifts to the claimant to demonstrate good cause for violating the rule.” Id.; see also Frumento v. Unemployment Comp. | 1 | 1 |
Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2016Once the employer has established the four prongs, “[t]he burden of proof shifts to the employee to prove that she had good cause for her actions.” Chapman v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 20 A.3d 603, 607 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2011). | 1 | 1 |
Moran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2015Section 402(e) of the Law states that an employee is ineligible for UC benefits for any week “[i]n which his unemployment is due to his discharge or temporary suspension from work for willful misconduct connected with his work . . . .” 43 P.S. § 802(e).3 When a dismissal for willful misconduct is due to the violation of a specific work rule, the employer has the burden to establish “the existence of the rule, its reasonableness, and that the employee was aware of its existence.” Moran v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 973 A.2d 1024, 1029 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2015Roberts v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 977 A.2d 12, 17 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2009). | 1 | 1 |
Webb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2015Webb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 670 A.2d 1212, 1214 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1996). | 1 | 1 |
Owens v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Reviewgreen1 sentence2007See Owens v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 748 A.2d 794 (Pa.Cmwlth.2000) (holding a claimant was terminated for willful misconduct after failing to return a medical leave request as required by the employer in order to receive *1241 an excused absence). | 1 | 1 |
| Case | Negative | Cited |
|---|---|---|
| No negative-treatment citations attached to this issue in Pennsylvania. Read the followed side critically anyway. | ||
| Case | Cited | Years |
|---|---|---|
Guthrie v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences2016Guthrie, 738 A.2d at 521 ; Brunson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 570 A.2d 1096, 1098 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1990). 2016Guthrie, 738 A.2d at 522 . | 5 | 2015–2016 |
Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences1997Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 667 , 596 A.2d 1191 (1991). 1997Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 141 Pa.Cmwlth. 667 , 596 A.2d 1191 (1991). | 3 | 1994–1997 |
Metropolitan Edison Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
2 sentences1994While the employer must prove the existence of a reasonable work rule and its violation in cases involving the violation of an employer's rules, Metropolitan Edison Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 146 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 648, 606 A.2d 955 (1992), Claimant has raised this issue for the first time on appeal to this court. 1994While the employer must prove the existence of a reasonable work rule and its violation in cases involving the violation of an employer’s rules, Metropolitan Edison Company v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 146 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 648, 606 A.2d 955 (1992), Claimant has raised this issue for the first time on appeal to this court. | 2 | 1994–1994 |
Owoc v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2018“Findings made by the Board are conclusive and binding on appeal if the record, examined as a whole, contains substantial evidence to support the findings.” Id. 4 Where an employer bases a claim of willful misconduct on the violation of a work rule, it bears the initial burden of proving the existence of a reasonable work rule and its violation. | 1 | 2018–2018 |
Shop Vac Corp. v. Workers' Compensation Appeal Board
green
2 sentences2017First, we will consider Claimant’s argument that substantial evidence does not exist to support the WCJ’s finding that applying a tourniquet constitutes the practice of phlebotomy.6 As noted by the WCJ, counsel for both parties stipulated at the September 23, 2014 hearing that applying a tourniquet is used in (continued…) unemployment context, “[i]n a case involving a work rule violation, the employer must establish both the existence of a reasonable work rule and its violation.” Shop Vac Corp., 929 A.2d at 1240 . 2017“If the employer proves the existence of the work rule, the reasonableness of the work rule, and the fact of its violation, the burden of proof shifts to the claimant to prove she had good cause for her actions.” Id. at 1241 . 6 The WCJ is the ultimate fact finder in workers’ compensation cases, and we are bound by the WCJ’s findings of fact if they are supported by substantial evidence. | 1 | 2017–2017 |
Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2016Conemaugh Memorial Medical Center v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 814 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). | 1 | 2016–2016 |
Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2015Caterpillar, Inc., 703 A.2d at 456 ; Walsh, 943 A.2d at 369-70 ; Williams v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 926 A.2d 568, 571-72 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007). | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Johns v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
green
1 sentence2015(Board Order.) Claimant now petitions this Court for review of the Board’s Order.2 In support of this appeal, Employer argues: (1) the Board erred in awarding Claimant benefits because Employer met its burden by establishing the existence of a reasonable work rule, of which Claimant was aware, and that Claimant violated the rule; (2) it was not required to follow its Disciplinary Actions Guide; 2 Our review “is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights were violate | 1 | 2015–2015 |
Younger v. Commonwealth, Department of Corrections
green
1 sentence2014While Claimant adduced some evidence to this 10 Further, an ARD is statutorily defined as a “prior offense” for purposes of the ignition interlock statute, Whalen, 32 A.3d at 685 , and as a “conviction” for sentencing purposes on subsequent DUIs. | 1 | 2014–2014 |
Peeples v. Commonwealth
green
2 sentences1994Peeples v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 504, 522 A.2d 680 (1987). 1994Peeples v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 104 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 504, 522 A.2d 680 (1987). | 1 | 1994–1994 |
Spirnak v. UN. COMP. BD. OF REV.
green
1 sentence1990Spirnak v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 125 Pa.Commonwealth Ct. 354, 557 A.2d 451 (1989). | 1 | 1990–1990 |
Wilson v. Commonwealth, Unemployment Compensation Board of Review
neutral
2 sentences1985Wilson, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 507 , 457 A.2d at 165 . 1985Wilson, 72 Pa. Commonwealth Ct. at 507 , 457 A.2d at 165 . | 1 | 1985–1985 |
Opinions by the citing court's state. A doctrine retained in one state and abandoned in another shows up here as a year span that stalls.