A Pennsylvania court has upheld a decision denying unemployment benefits to Courtney Gleco Hontz, a former police officer with Kingston Township. The ruling came after Hontz was suspended due to a Protection from Abuse (PFA) order stemming from allegations of domestic violence against her husband. This case highlights the intersection of employment law and personal conduct, particularly for public employees.
The Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, led by Judge Anne E. Covey, issued the ruling on October 20, 2026, in case number 662 C.D. 2025. The court's decision is significant as it clarifies the implications of a PFA order on employment status and eligibility for unemployment compensation.
Background
Courtney Gleco Hontz was employed as a full-time police officer for Kingston Township. In late October 2022, her husband filed a petition for a PFA order against her, alleging domestic violence. The Luzerne County Common Pleas Court granted a temporary PFA order, leading to Hontz being placed on paid administrative leave. A subsequent hearing resulted in a final PFA order against Hontz, which prohibited her from possessing firearms.
Due to the final PFA order, Hontz was unable to fulfill her duties as a police officer, which led to her suspension without pay. Following an internal investigation, Kingston Township recommended her termination, citing violations of the department's Code of Conduct and her Oath of Office. Hontz was officially terminated on July 5, 2023.
After her termination, Hontz applied for unemployment benefits, but the Harrisburg UC Service Center denied her application under Section 402(e) of the Unemployment Compensation Law, which pertains to willful misconduct. Hontz appealed this decision, but the Referee upheld the denial, leading to an appeal to the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (UCBR) and subsequently to the Commonwealth Court.
The Ruling
The Commonwealth Court affirmed the UCBR's decision, stating that Hontz's termination was justified based on the existence of the PFA order and her conduct leading to it. Judge Covey noted, "The existence of the [Final] PFA [Order] against [] [C]laimant evidenced a disregard of the standards of behavior which her [E]mployer had a right to expect of her." The court found that Hontz's actions constituted willful misconduct, which disqualified her from receiving unemployment benefits.
The court also addressed Hontz's claim that her due process rights were violated during the UC hearing. The judge stated that Hontz had adequate notice of the issues at hand and an opportunity to respond, as the grounds for her termination were clearly outlined in the termination letter provided by her employer.
Impact
This ruling sets a precedent for similar cases involving public employees who face legal issues affecting their employment. The court's decision reinforces the notion that a PFA order can have significant implications for a police officer's career and eligibility for unemployment benefits. It also highlights the responsibilities public employees have to maintain conduct that aligns with their professional duties.
The ruling may influence how other public employers handle cases involving domestic violence allegations and the subsequent disciplinary actions taken against employees. It underscores the importance of maintaining public trust and the standards expected from law enforcement personnel.
What's Next
Hontz has the option to appeal the Commonwealth Court's decision to a higher court, although details regarding any potential appeal were not available in the court filing. The outcome of this case may also have implications for future cases involving the intersection of personal conduct and employment law.