Unemployment Compensation Denied to Guard Who Failed to Stop Prisoner Assault

The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania has held that a guard who was fired for willful misconduct for failing to report the planned assault of a prisoner was not entitled to unemployment compensation. The Court reached the same conclusion after a reversal and remand.

The Court’s initial ruling reversed an order entered by the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which held the former guard, D. Lee Martin, had good cause for the policy violation.

While employed at Pennsylvania’s SCI-Camp Hill, Martin heard rumors that a fellow guard planned to have a prisoner assaulted. Fearing that other guards “would retaliate against him by shunning him, refusing to work with him, delaying responses to emergency situations, or causing personal injury” if he reported the planned assault, Martin did not report it.

While working in the control room “bubble” on July 13, 2005 with the guard who was rumored to have planned the assault and a third guard, Martin heard a prisoner screaming from a cell in a fellow guard’s cellblock. That guard ignored Martin’s request to stop what he suspected was the planned assault. Martin did not call for back up or take any other action. The prisoner sustained serious injuries as a result of the assault by four prisoners. Martin initially denied that he had any knowledge of the incident.

There was no dispute that Martin had failed to follow Pennsylvania Department of Corrections (PDOC) work rules, which constituted willful misconduct that prohibited unemployment compensation. The Board, however, found Martin’s fear of retaliation and the threat to his personal safety constituted good cause to violate the work rules. The Board’s decision was then appealed.

The Commonwealth Court agreed with PDOC that the decision was erroneous. “In fact, it shocks the conscience of this court that the Board concluded that a corrections officer who refuses to report a threat of violence against an inmate and refuses to render aid to an inmate being beaten could use fear for his own personal safety as good justification for his refusal to render aid,” the Court stated.

The Court went on to find that “Martin did nothing; he rendered no assistance; he failed to call for aid; he did not call for back-up or attempt to call for back up … Martin is guilty of willful misconduct.”

Most outrageous, the Commonwealth Court said, was that an official from PDOC’s Office of Professional Responsibility (Office) testified he was aware that some guards abused both prisoners and other guards, and those guards refused to follow work rules. Because the conduct of the Office was not directly before the Court, it could only express its “outrage.”

The Court concluded by saying that regardless of the Office’s conduct, the fact that “Martin may suffer indignation at the hands of his co-workers does not allow him to compromise the safety of those in his charge. Here, [guard] Martin, a sworn officer of law, has offered fear for himself and his possessions, as his justification for refusing to stop a prisoner from being beaten and tortured with the complicity of other [guards] … Martin’s conduct was unconscionable.”

The Board’s order was therefore reversed. See: Department of Corrections, SCI-Camp Hill v. Unemployment Comp. Board, 919 A.2d 316 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2007).

Subsequently, however, the Commonwealth Court’s ruling was reversed and remanded by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court for reconsideration in light of Navickas v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 567 PA. 298, 787 A.2d 282 (2001) (the Unemployment Compensation Act sets forth a single governing standard of willful misconduct and does not have a higher standard based upon the type or nature of the employment) and Grieb v, Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 573 Pa. 594, 827 A.2d 422 (2003) (the Unemployment Compensation Act sets forth a single standard regarding willful misconduct and does not have a heightened standard as a public safety exception). See: Department of Corrections, SCI-Camp Hill v. Unemployment Comp. Board, 594 Pa. 34, 934 A.2d 1149 (Pa. 2007).

Upon remand, on March 6, 2008, the Commonwealth Court again held that “fear of retaliation does not justify the failure to perform an essential duty of a corrections officer.” The Court specifically noted that “[Martin] refused to perform his job duties when he neither reported rumors of the assault nor intervened on the inmate’s behalf. Unquestionably, the mistreatment of an inmate is inimical to [PDOC’s] best interests. [Martin’s] actions also show an intentional disregard for the standards of behavior [that PDOC] can expect from its employees charged with protecting inmates.”

The Court found that Martin’s misconduct was willful, and thus the Board’s order was again reversed and Martin was denied unemployment benefits. See: Department of Corrections, SCI-Camp Hill v. Unemployment Comp. Board, 943 A.2d 1011 (Pa.Cmwlth. 2008).

Subscribe today

Already a subscriber? Login

Related legal cases