awareness rule in Pennsylvania

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).

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.

2023With respect to the instant case, “[w]hen the defendant seeks to waive the right to counsel after the preliminary hearing, the judge shall ascertain from the defendant, on the record, whether this is a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent waiver of counsel.” Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(C); see also Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(3) (noting that a judge may permit the attorney for the Commonwealth or the defendant to conduct the examination of the defendant’s awareness of the factors addressed in Pa.R.Crim.P. 121(A)(2) and that the judge shall be present during that examination); Commonwealth v. McDonough, 812 A.2d 5

2023“Before a defendant is permitted to proceed pro se, however, the defendant must first demonstrate that he knowingly, voluntarily and intelligently waives his constitutional right to the assistance of counsel.” Commonwealth v. Starr, 664 A.2d 1326, 1335 (Pa. 1995).

2018Bishop Carrol High School v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 557 A.2d 1141, 1143 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989).

2016Caterpillar, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 199, 201 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). 9 When discharging an employee for violating an employer’s rule, the employer must establish “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).

2016A 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).

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.

1975Wayman was based on the awareness that defense counsel cannot be expected to anticipate decisions of this Court: “[Ijt would be manifestly unfair to hold appellant to a waiver when this waiver is alleged to have occurred at a time when neither the defendant nor his attorney had any way of knowing that there existed a right to be waived.” Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79 , 81 n. 1, 309 A.2d 781 , 786 n. 1 (1973), quoting Commonwealth v. Simon, 446 Pa. 215, 218 , 285 A.2d 861, 862 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 95 , 239 A.2d 793, 796 (1968). .

1975Wayman was based on the awareness that defense counsel cannot be expected to anticipate decisions of this Court: “[Ijt would be manifestly unfair to hold appellant to a waiver when this waiver is alleged to have occurred at a time when neither the defendant nor his attorney had any way of knowing that there existed a right to be waived.” Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79 , 81 n. 1, 309 A.2d 781 , 786 n. 1 (1973), quoting Commonwealth v. Simon, 446 Pa. 215, 218 , 285 A.2d 861, 862 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 95 , 239 A.2d 793, 796 (1968). .

1975Wayman was based on the awareness that defense counsel cannot be expected to anticipate decisions of this Court: “[Ijt would be manifestly unfair to hold appellant to a waiver when this waiver is alleged to have occurred at a time when neither the defendant nor his attorney had any way of knowing that there existed a right to be waived.” Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79 , 81 n. 1, 309 A.2d 781 , 786 n. 1 (1973), quoting Commonwealth v. Simon, 446 Pa. 215, 218 , 285 A.2d 861, 862 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 95 , 239 A.2d 793, 796 (1968). .

1975Wayman was based on the awareness that defense counsel cannot be expected to anticipate decisions of this Court: “[Ijt would be manifestly unfair to hold appellant to a waiver when this waiver is alleged to have occurred at a time when neither the defendant nor his attorney had any way of knowing that there existed a right to be waived.” Commonwealth v. Wayman, 454 Pa. 79 , 81 n. 1, 309 A.2d 781 , 786 n. 1 (1973), quoting Commonwealth v. Simon, 446 Pa. 215, 218 , 285 A.2d 861, 862 (1971), and Commonwealth v. Cheeks, 429 Pa. 89, 95 , 239 A.2d 793, 796 (1968). .