## Facts

- Matthew Marion Fondel worked as an electronics engineer for a federal employer, the Naval Air Development Center.
- A supervisor directed that a meeting be set to discuss Fondel’s work product and performance and issued Fondel a direct order to attend.
- Fondel requested “representation” at the meeting; the request was denied.
- Fondel refused to attend despite the direct order.
- The employer’s witness testified that Fondel also used abusive language toward the supervisor and hung up the phone; Fondel denied this and accused the supervisor of lying.
- The referee and Board credited the employer’s testimony, including evidence of prior similar conduct resulting in a suspension.
- Fondel was discharged and applied for Pennsylvania unemployment compensation; benefits were denied for willful misconduct under Section 402(e).

## Issues

1. Whether refusal to obey a reasonable, performance-related directive to attend a meeting, coupled with abusive language toward a supervisor, constitutes willful misconduct disqualifying a claimant under Section 402(e) of the Pennsylvania Unemployment Compensation Law.
2. Whether a federal employee’s eligibility for Pennsylvania unemployment compensation depends on meeting the federal civil service “efficiency of the service” standard in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a), rather than Pennsylvania’s willful-misconduct standard.

## Decision

- The Commonwealth Court affirmed the Board’s denial of benefits.
- Substantial evidence supported the Board’s findings that Fondel deliberately refused a reasonable order and used abusive language toward a superior.
- Those acts constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e).
- The court rejected Fondel’s argument that 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) controlled benefit eligibility; 5 U.S.C. § 8502(b) requires application of state substantive unemployment eligibility law to federal employees.
- Credibility determinations were for the Board, and the court would not reweigh conflicting testimony.

## Legal Principles

- In Pennsylvania, willful misconduct includes refusal to comply with a reasonable supervisory directive related to work performance and abusive or insolent language toward a supervisor.
- The Board is the ultimate fact-finder in unemployment compensation matters; its findings are binding on appeal if supported by substantial evidence, including credibility choices.
- Federal civil service adverse-action standards in 5 U.S.C. § 7513(a) do not define state unemployment compensation eligibility.
- Under 5 U.S.C. § 8502(b), federal employees’ unemployment compensation eligibility is determined under the substantive unemployment compensation law of the state paying benefits, including state disqualification rules for willful misconduct.

## Conclusion

Because substantial evidence supported the Board’s finding that Fondel refused a reasonable direct order and used abusive language, the discharge was for willful misconduct under Section 402(e), and Pennsylvania properly denied unemployment benefits; federal civil service removal standards did not alter that result.


Fondel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Rev., 111 Pa. Commw. Ct. 123, 533 A.2d 789 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1987)