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

[happyslug]

93. You obviously do not practice Unemployment compensation law in Pennsylvania

I do. The Unemployment Referees (the name used in Pennsylvania for the people who decides cases where the right to unemployment compensation is at issue) are notorious for being pro employer. Furthermore, while the burden of proof is on the employer is such cases, preponderance of evidence generally means, "I have a rule, he disobeyed it, he gets no unemployment" or in a case like this "his actions made me look bad and that is wilful misconduct". Referees will ruled that to be the "facts" of the case and that the Employer carried his burden of proof by preponderance of evidence in such cases. Thus employees MUST be ready to show that such rules were NOT enforced, that the actions the employee did was either within reason OR that the employee was CLEARLY off work.

In this case, given what this person SAID and that it is on film, the Employer can use that film to carry ANY burden of proof required in this case. Employers do NOT need much evidence to carry that burden and with this film they have more then enough.

On appeal, what the Referee found to have happened can NOT be challenged for that is a finding of fact reserved to the Referee, but that the action amounted to "Wilful Misconduct" is an issue of law that can be appealed. You first go through the rubber stamp of the Board of Review, then you appeal to Commonwealth Court.

Many years ago, I attended a meeting where the Clerk of Court of Commonwealth Court. In that meeting the Clerk mentioned that the Court actually likes Unemployment Compensation cases for generally all they hear are cases involving contracts with Municipalities (Which the court were created to hear in addition to appeals from Commonwealth Agencies). His comments was you can find cases supporting almost any issue that comes in front of the Court, for the Court tends to uphold whatever the Unemployment Compensation Referee decided if something was or was not wilful misconduct.

Thus my comment, all the employer has to show is this man's action brought the name of his employer into disrepute and that by itself is "Wilful Misconduct". That is all the evidence the Employer needs to satisfy the requirement that the burden of proof is on the employer.

As to an actual case, See the "CADDEN UNEMPL. COMPENSATION CASE" 195 Pa. Super. 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1961.

https://casetext.com/case/cadden-unempl-compensation-case

In that case the court ruled that speeding off the job was grounds was wilful misconduct.

It constituted willful misconduct connected with his work. It was a willful disregard of the employer's interests and of the standards of behavior which the employer has a right to expect of its employees.

195 Pa. Super. 159 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1961

Now that case involved exceeding the speed limit in a car owned by the employer and used by the employee for he was on 24 hour call, but the actual speeding violation was when the employee was using the car on his own time and having NOTHING to do with his employment. The Court's comment clearly stated they did NOT think the employee was on duty when he received the ticket, but that ticket was enough to show "Wilful Misconduct" in his refusal to obey the speed limit even off duty/

Thus Pennsylvania has a long history of DENYING unemployment to employees whose actions OFF WORK, brings their employer's reputation into disrepute. In such cases, all the Employer has to show that the employee did SOMETHING that looked bad and that he was their employee. The Employee has to show that his actions where NOT only off work BUT he made it clear he was NOT representing his employee when he did the act.

In many ways this goes back to the Master-Servant rule, where an employer is held responsible for the actions of their employees UNLESS it can clearly be shown that the employee was clearly outside of the Employer-Employee relationship (Thus the owner of a trucking company is responsible for any accidents his truckers get into UNLESS it can be shown that the employee was clearly working outside his normal work).

In such cases employers can be held liable even for actions of their employees off duty IF IT APPEARS THAT OTHER PEOPLE WOULD THINK THEY WERE ON DUTY. Notice it is NOT that the person was on duty or not, but if they APPEAR to be on duty to other people involved in the accident or incident. That is the Master-Servant rule. They are restrictions on that rule as to when it applies when an employee is off the work site, but if it is normal for the employee to work off the work site, the Master-Servant rule still applies and if that rule applies to the situation so does unemployment compensation law. That appears to be the case here and I see the Unemployment Board of Review to uphold that set of facts and that this person's action were "Wilful Misconduct".