Woman Denied Unemployment After Facebook Post About Slitting Co-Worker's Throat
A woman who claimed on Facebook that she would have slit a co-worker's throat during an alleged altercation had they not been on the job is ineligible for unemployment benefits, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
April 18, 2019 at 10:45 AM
3 minute read
The original version of this story was published on The Legal Intelligencer
Credit: JaysonPhotography/Shutterstock.com
A woman who claimed on Facebook that she would have slit a co-worker's throat during an alleged altercation had they not been on the job is ineligible for unemployment benefits, the Commonwealth Court has ruled.
A three-judge panel consisting of President Judge Mary Hannah Leavitt and Judges Anne Covey and Michael Wojcik denied Shannon Cummins' appeal of an Unemployment Compensation Board of Review's determination that she committed misconduct disqualifying her from receiving benefits.
According to Leavitt's opinion, Cummins claimed a supervisor at Force Industries Inc. placed his hands on her during a discussion about her not wearing safety goggles. The supervisor, Kenny McBrearty, testified that he did touch her arm to move her into his office to talk about her refusal to wear safety goggles.
Afterward, according to the opinion, Cummins took to Facebook, writing: “'Today, a man put his hands on me. It's then when [you] realize how weak they are that they can't pick on someone of their own kind. I learned willpower, self[-]restraint and gained dignity. I wonder how he feels now.'”
In the comment section of the post, according to the opinion, she then wrote, “'I would [have] sliced his throat open if it didn't happen at work. And had no remorse.'”
According to Leavitt, three witnesses told police who were called in response to the threat that McBrearty did not shove Cummins, as she had claimed, but escorted her from the shop floor.
After seeing the post, the company president fired Cummins. The plaintiff then sought unemployment benefits, but was denied by an unemployment board referee, who found the Facebook post constituted “willful misconduct.”
“The referee rejected claimant's argument that her statement was not a threat, finding that it was 'specific and overtly menacing,'” Leavitt said. “He concluded that because claimant's statement 'would be disruptive and cause discord amongst knowing individuals at the workplace,' it constituted willful misconduct.”
Cummins argued on appeal that the board erred in finding her Facebook post was a direct threat. She further maintained that the board erred in holding that she committed willful misconduct because she did not post the comment while at work.
However, Cummins failed to convince the court.
“We reject claimant's argument that she did not make a threat because her statement was conditioned on the incident hypothetically happening outside of work and outside the presence of coworkers,” Leavitt said. “Likewise, claimant's use of the subjunctive 'would have' does not reduce the severity of her words. Further, although claimant was expressing her present feelings about a past incident, her words expressed an intent to cause physical harm.”
Leavitt also said the fact that the threat was not made at work makes no difference.
“Cummins,” Leavitt said, “made her threatening statement on Facebook as a result of her confrontation with McBrearty at work. At the hearing, claimant testified that she wrote the post later that evening because '[she] was mad that [McBrearty] still had a job and [she's] sitting at home and nothing was being done.' Claimant's conduct was sufficiently connected to her work to constitute willful misconduct.”
Cummins represented herself in the case. The board was represented by Janet Tarczy. Cummins did not return a call seeking comment. The unemployment board spokesperson declined to comment.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Securities Report Says That 2024 Settlements Passed a Total of $5.2B
3 minute read
Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
3 minute read

Landlord Must Pay Prevailing Tenants' $21K Attorney Fees in Commercial Lease Dispute, Appellate Court Rules
4 minute readTrending Stories
- 1ACC CLO Survey Waves Warning Flags for Boards
- 2States Accuse Trump of Thwarting Court's Funding Restoration Order
- 3Microsoft Becomes Latest Tech Company to Face Claims of Stealing Marketing Commissions From Influencers
- 4Coral Gables Attorney Busted for Stalking Lawyer
- 5Trump's DOJ Delays Releasing Jan. 6 FBI Agents List Under Consent Order
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250