Mula v. Commonwealth

Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

Mula v. Commonwealth

407 A.2d 477, 47 Pa. Commw. 177, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2137

CourtCommonwealth Court of Pennsylvania

DecidedNovember 2, 1979

DocketAppeal, No. 1738 C.D. 1978

StatusPublished

Cited by4 cases

This text of 407 A.2d 477 (Mula v. Commonwealth) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Mula v. Commonwealth, 407 A.2d 477, 47 Pa. Commw. 177, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2137 (Pa. Ct. App. 1979).

Pincite

Opinion

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

James S. Mula, a manager for Ponderosa Steak House¹ was terminated from his employment for throwing a chair at a patron during an altercation. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits for willful misconduct chargeable under Section 402(e)² of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.

Mula contends that he escapes disqualification under Section 402(e) because the patron initiated the violence by punching him.

While we recognize Mula’s right to defend himself against physical assault, the record establishes that his action was in retaliation for being hit rather than [179]*179self-defense and hence will not excuse his conduct. At the time the chair was thrown, the patron was standing ten to 15 feet away, was not advancing toward the claimant or making any other motion which would indicate additional assault.

Further, immediately surrounding the patron were several innocent by-standers who were put in danger of physical harm by the claimant’s action. In light of Mula’s special position as manager, training in customer relations, and his responsibility to maintain the safe and efficient management of the restaurant, his conduct fell far below that standard which his employer had a right to expect and is sufficient to constitute willful misconduct under Section 402(e).

Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 2nd day of November, 1979, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to James S. Mula is affirmed.

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

Opinion by

Judge Crumlish, Jr.,

James S. Mula, a manager for Ponderosa Steak House¹ was terminated from his employment for throwing a chair at a patron during an altercation. The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denied benefits for willful misconduct chargeable under Section 402(e)² of the Unemployment Compensation Law. We affirm.

Mula contends that he escapes disqualification under Section 402(e) because the patron initiated the violence by punching him.

While we recognize Mula’s right to defend himself against physical assault, the record establishes that his action was in retaliation for being hit rather than [179]*179self-defense and hence will not excuse his conduct. At the time the chair was thrown, the patron was standing ten to 15 feet away, was not advancing toward the claimant or making any other motion which would indicate additional assault.

Further, immediately surrounding the patron were several innocent by-standers who were put in danger of physical harm by the claimant’s action. In light of Mula’s special position as manager, training in customer relations, and his responsibility to maintain the safe and efficient management of the restaurant, his conduct fell far below that standard which his employer had a right to expect and is sufficient to constitute willful misconduct under Section 402(e).

Accordingly, we

Order

And Now, this 2nd day of November, 1979, the decision of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review denying benefits to James S. Mula is affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

407 A.2d 477, 47 Pa. Commw. 177, 1979 Pa. Commw. LEXIS 2137, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/mula-v-commonwealth-pacommwct-1979.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack