Photo: Shutterstock.com

This story is reprinted with permission from FC&S Legal, the industry's only comprehensive digital resource designed for insurance coverage law professionals. Visit www.fcandslegal.com to subscribe.

A Pennsylvania court has upheld a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying unemployment compensation benefits to a claimant who did not notify his employer of his arrest until nearly 24 hours after his release from jail.

The Case

Matt Sipps was employed by G4S Security Solutions as a full-time security officer from Jan. 9, 2012, through Dec. 4, 2016. When he began working for G4S, Sipps acknowledged the company policy that “grounds for [i]mmediate [d]ismissal” included “failure to report immediately an arrest … to your supervisor.”

On the morning of Dec. 5, 2016, Sipps was arrested on criminal charges and held in a county prison until he was released at approximately 10 p.m. that day.

On Dec. 6, 2016, G4S learned from a news report that Sipps had been arrested the day before.

At approximately 7:30 p.m. that day, Sipps notified G4S of his arrest.

G4S discharged Sipps for violating its arrest reporting policy.

Sipps applied for unemployment compensation benefits. The local unemployment compensation service center determined that Sipps was not eligible for unemployment compensation benefits because of “willful misconduct connected to his work”—that is, he had not immediately reported his arrest to G4S as required by G4S's policy.

Sipps appealed, and a hearing was held before a referee.

At the hearing, Sipps testified that he worked on Dec. 4, 2016, and was not scheduled to work again until Wednesday evening, Dec. 8, 2016. He recounted that he was incarcerated for approximately eight hours following his Dec. 5, 2016, arrest and that he was released at approximately 10 p.m. after he posted bail.

Sipps testified he was aware of G4S's policy but asserted that he could not report his arrest to G4S on Dec. 5 because he did not have a cellphone or access to a telephone during the time he was incarcerated.

He admitted that he had access to a telephone and that he used a computer after his Dec. 5 release, and he acknowledged that calling G4S would have taken only five minutes. He said that he called G4S between 7 p.m. and 8 p.m. on Dec. 6 instead of calling his supervisor earlier that morning because he was not scheduled to work until Dec. 8, and he prioritized what he had to accomplish to comply with the judge's orders, such as filing paperwork and finding a lawyer.

When asked why he did not contact his supervisor after his 10 p.m. release on Dec. 5, Sipps maintained:

“Sipps: Well, sometimes he's hard to get a hold of. He doesn't answer right away, and especially at nighttime. I was being more considerate and concerned with him, because he has a wife that's basically indigent [sic] right now, and he's …

Referee: So…

Sipps: …taking care of…

Referee: …why didn't you send a text message or something?

Sipps: It doesn't go through because he lives in an area where he doesn't get cell reception, and it's—other officers know about that, so …

Referee: All right. [Inaudible] following day, in the morning …

Sipps: Correct. I did it within 24 hours.”

Sipps contended that he had complied with G4S's policy because his understanding of “immediately” was “as soon as possible,” and he considered reporting his arrest within 24 hours of his release “immediately.”

Based on the evidence, the referee upheld the decision to deny benefits to Sipps. The referee made the following findings:

• Sipps “was or should have been aware of [G4S's] policy regarding reporting arrest[s] immediately as they occur.”

• On Dec. 6, 2016, G4S received a report in the local news that Sipps was incarcerated.

• G4S discharged Sipps for violating its policy regarding reporting incarceration.

The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) affirmed the referee's decision. It decided that Sipps “failed to follow [G4S's] known policy regarding the immediate reporting of an arrest.” Because he waited nearly 24 hours from the time he was released and nearly 48 hours from the time of his arrest to report his arrest to G4S, Sipps violated its policy and he failed to present good cause for his violation.

Sipps went to court.

The Court's Decision

The court affirmed the UCBR's decision.

In its decision, the court explained that “willful misconduct” connected to an employee's work included “a deliberate violation of the employer's rules.”

The court acknowledged that G4S's policy did not define “immediately,” but found substantial evidence supporting the UCBR's findings that G4S had a reasonable policy of which Sipps was aware, yet he consciously chose not to take a few minutes to comply with the policy “until nearly 24 hours after his release.”

Sipps deliberately violated G4S's arrest reporting policy without proven good cause, the court ruled, concluding that the UCBR had properly determined that Sipps' discharge was due to willful misconduct and, therefore, that he was uneligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Pennsylvania's unemployment compensation law.

The case is Sipps v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review. Attorneys involved include John A. Gallagher of Malvern for the petitioner and Victoria Groff, assistant counsel in Harrisburg, for the respondent.