<http://schema.org/articleBody>
"A three-judge Commonwealth Court panel has reversed a decision by the state&rsquo;s<br /><br />Unemployment Compensation Board of Review to deny unemployment benefits to a man who had been let go from his job for allegedly not revealing a supposed arrest on his record.<br /><br />Ryan M. Adams was terminated from his job with Adelphoi Education in late August 2011 for not making his employer aware that he had been &ldquo;arrested&rdquo; by members of the Penn Township Police Department in Chester County days earlier.<br /><br />The appellate decision does not elaborate on the reason behind the arrest.<br /><br />Adams had not been forcibly handcuffed or physically taken into custody by police officers on Aug. 15, 2011, although he was required to appear before a magistrate judge, get fingerprinted and agree to the terms of an Accelerated Rehabilitation Disposition (ARD) program available to first-time offenders.<br /><br />Adams did not inform his employer of the incident, with the employer learning about the matter through a third party on Aug. 18, 2011, the record shows.<br /><br />The company suspended Adams on Aug. 22, 2011, and it subsequently terminated Adams for violating company policy in not reporting an arrest.<br /><br />Adams contended that he violated no policies because he was technically never &ldquo;arrested.&rdquo;<br /><br />The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review determined that an employer may use its own interpretation of its policies when rendering discipline.<br /><br />Adams, however, argued that the UCBR committed an error of law in determining that Adams was guilty of willful misconduct for failing to report an arrest to his employer.<br /><br />The three-judge appellate court panel agreed with Adams, writing that, as per case law, a company has the burden of proving that it discharged an employee for willful misconduct, which did not appear to take place in this matter.<br /><br />&ldquo;Claimant argues that he was not &lsquo;arrested&rsquo; as that term is commonly understood and, therefore was under no obligation to notify Employer of the criminal charges against him,&rdquo; the court opinion states.<br /><br />The ruling states that had Adams failed to appear before the magistrate or follow the magistrate&rsquo;s directives, he <em>could </em>have been arrested, and that by following the magistrate&rsquo;s orders Adams, in fact, avoided arrest.<br /><br />&ldquo;Simply stated, [Adams] was never held in custody or detained by law enforcement,&rdquo; the appellate ruling states. &ldquo;The possibility or threat of arrest is not the equivalent of an arrest, nor is the act of appearing before a magistrate and being fingerprinted.&rdquo;<br /><br />The ruling says that the employer&rsquo;s code specifically requires a worker to notify his or her employer of any &ldquo;arrests or convictions,&rdquo; not charges.<br /><br />&ldquo;Because Claimant was neither arrested nor convicted, Claimant was under no duty to report the charges under Employer&rsquo;s Code,&rdquo; the opinion reads. &ldquo;Therefore, Employer failed to prove that Claimant&rsquo;s conduct constituted a deliberate violation of Employer&rsquo;s work rule rendering him ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits.&rdquo;<br /><br />Commonwealth Court President Judge Dan Pellegrini and Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt joined Senior Judge Rochelle S. Friedman, who wrote the opinion, in the decision."^^<http://www.w3.org/2001/XMLSchema#string>
<http://pennrecord.com/stories/510552560-pa-commonwealth-court-panel-reverses-ucbr-decision-denying-unemployment-compensation-to-worker>