Background
IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Donisha Simmons, : Petitioner : : No. 361 C.D. 2025 v. : : Submitted: June 16, 2026 Unemployment Compensation Board of : Review, : Respondent : BEFORE: HONORABLE LORI A. TSAI, Judge HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE DUMAS FILED: July 23, 2026 Donisha Simmons (Petitioner) has petitioned this Court to review the adjudication of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), issued February 19, 2025, which affirmed a Referee’s decision that Petitioner was ineligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (UC Law) relating to willful misconduct.1 Upon review, we affirm. 1 Section 402(e) of the UC Law, Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(e) (providing that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation when her separation from employment is due to willful misconduct connected with her work).
BACKGROUND2 Petitioner worked as a full-time prebilling specialist for Erb Management Services (Employer) from October 2023 until July 2024. Employer maintained a workplace-conduct policy prohibiting fighting or threatening behavior, where a single violation could result in termination of employment. In July 2024, Petitioner assisted a co-worker with a computer-related issue and remarked that another employee, Kaci,3 had caused the problem. Kaci overheard the comment and immediately confronted Petitioner. Kaci suggested that they bring the dispute to management’s attention, and, in response, Petitioner told Kaci something to the effect of “get out of my space.” See Referee’s Decision, 1/21/25, Findings of Fact (F.F.) ¶8. At that point, a co-worker (Gifford) present for the quarrel believed the dispute might escalate and sought the manager’s attention. Kaci proceeded to find the manager (Hartman) in a separate work area, and Petitioner followed. Both employees were yelling at each other and using profanity. The manager intervened, ordered the parties to stop, and Petitioner returned to her workspace. Later that day, Employer terminated both Petitioner and Kaci for their participation in the exchange. Petitioner subsequently applied for UC benefits, which the UC Service Center denied. Petitioner timely appealed to a Referee, who held a hearing at which Petitioner, Hartman, Gifford, and Employer’s human resources representative (Greer) testified. The Referee affirmed, finding that Petitioner had committed 2 Unless stated otherwise, we adopt this background from the Board’s decision and order, which adopted and incorporated the Referee’s findings and conclusions. See Bd.’s Decision & Order, 2/19/25; see also Referee’s Decision, 1/21/25.
The Court’s Holding
CONCLUSION In this case, the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we discern no contradictions in the evidence presented by Employer so substantial as to render those findings pure conjecture. Based on these findings, including that Employer maintained and consistently enforced a work policy prohibiting fighting or threatening behavior, Petitioner committed willful misconduct. Halloran; Fera; Gordon Terminal Serv. Finally, Petitioner was not provoked and, therefore, failed to establish good cause for her actions. For these reasons, we affirm the Board’s decision. DUMAS, Judge 12 IN THE COMMONWEALTH COURT OF PENNSYLVANIA Donisha Simmons, : Petitioner : : No. 361 C.D. 2025 v. : : Unemployment Compensation Board of : Review, : Respondent : ORDER AND NOW, this 23rd day of July, 2026, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, entered February 19, 2025, is AFFIRMED.
The decision applies Pennsylvania law to the issues preserved in this appeal and explains the governing standard in the court’s own terms. The disposition controls the parties’ next steps and supplies guidance for litigants confronting the same procedural or substantive question.
Key Takeaways
- CONCLUSION In this case, the Board’s findings are supported by substantial evidence, and we discern no contradictions in the evidence presented by Employer so substantial as to render those findings pure conjecture.
- Based on these findings, including that Employer maintained and consistently enforced a work policy prohibiting fighting or threatening behavior, Petitioner committed willful misconduct.
- Halloran; Fera; Gordon Terminal Serv.
Why It Matters
Commonwealth Court upholds a willful-misconduct disqualification based on testimonial proof of a workplace rule Pennsylvania practitioners should read the ruling with particular attention to the court’s treatment of preservation, the applicable standard, and the remedy. Those points will shape how comparable claims are framed in trial courts and reviewed on appeal.