Pennsylvania man hurls vile, racist insults at cameraman and protesters, promptly gets swift justice

[happyslug]

72. This sub thread is about unemployment INSURANCE NOT employment law

Unemployment Insurance and Employment law are two DIFFERENT set of laws. What you say is true about EMPLOYMENT law but if an employee is unemployed for NO Fault of his own, then he is eligible for UNEMPLOYMENT INSURANCE. Thus if an employer fires an employee for NO reason, that employee can NOT sue to get his job back OR for damages do to the lost of a job, BUT the employee can file for unemployment and unless the employer can show willful misconduct by the employee, the employee will get unemployment.

When I was in College taking business law the professor mentioned your employment handbook is NOT your employment contract. When I stared to practice unemployment insurance law, I found out why such handbooks exists. In cases involving Unemployment INSURANCE, if the employer does NOT follow the procedures set forth in the handbook, they tend to lose unemployment insurance cases. If employers follow such procedures, they tend to win such cases. Thus employment handbook is a way for an employer to defend themselves in unemployment insurance cases.

Employers want to defend themselves for the taxes that support unemployment were set by Congress to be paid by Employers based on what the employers paid in wages. 2/3rds of the money collected are allocated to the states to be paid as unemployment, 1/3 to be paid to the Federal Government to set up the unemployment system (The actual employees are STATE employees but paid via the FEDERAL portion of unemployment taxes).

The states allocated its 2/3rds of unemployment taxes to pay people who are unemployed for no fault of their own, AND every state reduce the unemployment taxes due, based on how often an employee lays someone off work EXCEPT when such an employee does NOT apply for unemployment OR if they do, it is denied, generally for Wilful Misconduct. Thus employers have reasons to fight unemployment claims for the more claims made on them, the higher taxes they must pay (Please note the 2.1% tax rate with .7% going to the Feds, and 1.4% going to the states, is the minimum tax rate, the State MAY have higher rates if needed to pay unemployment insurance, when states do adopt such rates MOST are reducible based on lay off rates just like the 1.4% is).

What is unemployment was left up to the states but someone who is laid off do to the lack of work or the employer has no money to be pay workers wages, the Federal Government has called the bare minimum a state can adopt as someone who is unemployed for purposes on Unemployment Insurance purposes. Most states have extended the right to unemployment to include people who are laid off by employers UNLESS the employer committed some sort of "Wilful Misconduct".

What is "Wilful Misconduct" varies from state to state, for example in most states if your employer locks you out because of a Union contract dispute, the union members locked out get unemployment compensation, but no unemployment compensation if they go on strike (North Dakota is a state that denies unemployment insurance even in cases of lock outs, so this rule is NOT universal, thus you have to check your home state unemployment rules).

What is "Wilful Misconduct"? That is a violation of a rule of the employer (unless that rule is universally ignored) anything that harms the employer. The following is constantly being repeated in Pennsylvania unemployment insurance cases, for it is a quote from the Pennsylvania Commonwealth Court in 1977 as:

As a general principle in order to deny unemployment compensation benefits to an employee, his or her action must involve a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.

http://employmentlaw101.blogspot.com/2010/03/pennsylvania-unemployment-hearings-what.html#sthash.tJ4XyDqw.dpuf

This follows a 1972 Commonwealth Court Case that followed a 1951 Pennsylvania Superior Court Case (in 1969, when the present Pennsylvania Constitution was written, the Convention crated Commonwealth Court to hear cases involving government entities such as the Board of unemployment compensation).

Unfortunately, the Legislature has not defined the phrase "willful misconduct". The appellate courts of this Commonwealth have endeavored to establish the standards to be applied in willful misconduct cases. As a general principle in order to deny unemployment compensation benefits to an employee, his or her action must involve a wanton or willful disregard of the employer's interest, a deliberate violation of the employer's rules, a disregard of standards of behavior which the employer has the right to expect of his employees, or negligence in such degree or recurrence as to manifest culpability, wrongful intent, or evil design, or show an intentional and substantial disregard of the employer's interests or of the employee's duties and obligations to the employer.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19724906PaCommw484_1423/LODER%20v.%20UNEMPL.%20COMP.%20BD.%20OF%20REVIEW

Here is the 1972 case:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/19724906PaCommw484_1423/LODER%20v.%20UNEMPL.%20COMP.%20BD.%20OF%20REVIEW

The 1951 case:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1951459168PaSuper291_1407/DETTERER%20UNEMP.%20COMPENSATION%20CASE

Given that paragraph includes the phase "willful disregard of the employer's interest" that is enough to deny this man unemployment compensation UNLESS he can show he was CLEARLY not representing his employer at the time of the incident. Thus grounds to be denied unemployment.