Fetherson Unemployment Compensation Case

174 A.2d 880, 196 Pa. Super. 498, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 515
CourtSuperior Court of Pennsylvania
DecidedNovember 16, 1961
DocketAppeal, No. 277
StatusPublished
Cited by2 cases

This text of 174 A.2d 880 (Fetherson Unemployment Compensation Case) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Superior Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Fetherson Unemployment Compensation Case, 174 A.2d 880, 196 Pa. Super. 498, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 515 (Pa. Ct. App. 1961).

Opinion

Opinion by

Woodside, J.,

This is an appeal by Shirley Fetherson from a decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying her compensation. The board found that claimant was ineligible for benefits under section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, because she used obscene language to her supervisor within hearing of some other employes.

Section 402 of the Unemployment Compensation Law, 43 P.S. §802(e) provides in part: “An employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week — (e) In which his unemployment is due to his discharge . . . for willful misconduct connected with his work, . . .,” The appellant concedes that the use of obscene language constitutes “willful misconduct”. Dati Unemployment Compensation Case, 184 Pa. Superior Ct. 292, 132 A. 2d 765 (1957). However, she contends that [500]*500there was no credible evidence from which the board could make such a finding.

There is no merit to this contention. An examination of the record reveals that the supervisor testified that claimant used foul and obscene language. While he refused to repeat the language used by claimant, he did write it on a piece of paper, which was entered as an exhibit, and testified: “That was said to me, my wife and everybody in the shop at the top of her lungs.” This is competent evidence to support the board’s finding.

The claimant denied using obscene language. However, it is well settled that the credibility of witnesses is for the board, and that the party in whose favor the board has found should be given the benefit of every inference which can logically and reasonably be drawn from the testimony. Ristis Unemployment Compensation Case, 178 Pa. Superior Ct. 400, 403, 116 A. 2d 271 (1955).

The order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Yoldash v. Review Board of the Indiana Employment Security Division
438 N.E.2d 310 (Indiana Court of Appeals, 1982)
Reynolds v. Daniels
614 S.W.2d 525 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 1981)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
174 A.2d 880, 196 Pa. Super. 498, 1961 Pa. Super. LEXIS 515, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/fetherson-unemployment-compensation-case-pasuperct-1961.