DISSENTING OPINION BY
Judge LEADBETTER.I must respectfully dissent. Even if we assume, arguendo, that TALX UC EXPRESS, a company not affiliated with employer and “in the business of representing other companies in unemployment compensation cases” [majority op. at 730] was engaged in the unauthorized practice of law, I would not reverse the denial of benefits because I believe any error to be harmless. It seems to me beyond reasonable dispute that a person employed in retail sales at a department store commits willful misconduct by telling a customer, even one behaving in an obnoxious manner, to “get your fat ass out of here.” No amount of lawyering, or lack thereof, could have changed the result.1 Therefore, I would not address the important issue of non-lawyer representatives in this context.
Of perhaps even more importance, I find the analysis of the majority to be over-broad and problematic. First, I do not agree that all non-lawyer representatives in these proceedings are practicing law. In my experience, a claimant’s representative is most likely to be a family member, and an employer’s representative an employee who is also appearing as a witness. They do not purport to have legal expertise, but they do often assist in clarifying factual issues. Moreover, the Board has demonstrated strong and well-reasoned policy grounds for authorizing non-lawyers to participate in this way:
The statutory and regulatory allowance of non-lawyer representation in unemployment compensation hearings takes into account the informal nature of these proceedings and the relatively small amounts in controversy.
*734The Supreme Court of Ohio has similarly recognized that the role of lay participants before its unemployment compensation board is not to render legal advice or otherwise practice law; rather, “the purpose of their participation is to facilitate the hearing process by serving as an adjunct to the claimant or employer in the sharing of their respective versions of the circumstances attendant to the claim.” Henize v. Giles, 22 Ohio St.3d 213, 490 N.E.2d 585, 588 (1986). That court further noted that other states allow lay representation at unemployment hearings and quoted the National Commission on Unemployment Compensation as having “recommended that all state programs permit all parties to a hearing to have representatives of their own choosing, irrespective of whether such representatives are members of the bar.” . Id. (citation omitted).
An inflexible rule mandating legal counsel for employers in unemployment compensation cases is counterproductive to the unemployment compensation system. If, employers were required to obtain legal counsel for every unemployment compensation case, they may not participate at all. Their lack of participation would hinder the fact-finding process, by depriving the unemployment compensation authorities of critical information, and allowing undeserving claimánts to receive benefits by default.
The Board’s system, which permits non-lawyer representation of parties, fa-eilitates a straightforward and thorough fact-finding process and ensures the payment of benefits when proper.
Board’s brief at 10-11, 12 (footnote omitted). Our Supreme Court, in Rue v. K-Mart Corp., 552 Pa. 13, 19-20, 713 A.2d 82, 85-86 (1998), explained that Unemployment Compensation hearings are not designed to be the equivalent of court hearings, but instead are brief and informal proceedings where the rules of evidence do not apply. Indeed, the presiding officer is not necessarily a lawyer.
Even if I believed that all non-lawyer representatives in these proceedings were engaged in the practice of law, I cannot agree that such practice is authorized for claimants but unauthorized for employers. As the Board notes, although stated in less explicit terms for employers than for claimants, its regulations contemplate that both parties in Unemployment Compensation proceedings may be assisted by non-lawyer representatives, and it has consistently maintained a policy allowing both sides to be so represented.2 This court has explicitly recognized this policy. See United States Postal Serv. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 152 Pa. Cmwlth. 603, 620 A.2d 572, 574 (1993).
Nor do I believe that this court can declare that policy invalid as to employers but not claimants. In the ordinary equal protection analysis, an agency must show a valid state interest3 in order to treat similarly situated parties differently. Here, the Board has shown strong policy reasons for its procedures which treat all parties the same, and this court now requires that *735it discriminate.4 Indeed, it does so without even articulating how such discrimination furthers any governmental interest.5 This decision not only mandates a sea change in the nature of Unemployment Compensation proceedings, but creates equal protection problems where none currently exist. In short, I would not meddle in a system that seems to be working.
For all of the reasons stated above, I would affirm the order of the Board.
Judge COHN JUBELIRER joins in this dissenting opinion.
. The Board characterizes this as a lack of standing. It states:
The Board questions Claimant's standing on this issue, since its denial of benefits is supported by testimony elicited from her on direct examination without any need to consider the further testimony brought out by Employer’s representative through cross-examination. She did not object to proceeding first in this case, even though Employer had the burden of proof, and did not object to Employer's representative until he began cross-examination. (N.T. pp. 3, 7). Consequently, this issue does not affect the case outcome.
Board’s brief at 8, n. 4.
. The majority bases its interpretation on the express language stating that claimants may be represented by lay persons, but ignores other regulations which refer to all parties’ "counsel or authorized agent.” See, e.g., 34 Pa.Code § 101.85(a); 34 Pa.Code § 101.105(a); 34 Pa.Code § 101.89; 34 Pa. Code § 101.110; 34 Pa.Code § 101.104(b); 34 Pa.Code § 101.130(a) and (e); 34 Pa.Code § 101.131(c).
. The degree of state interest which must be established will vary depending upon the classification at issue. Probst v. Dep’t of Transp., *735Bureau of Driver Licensing, 578 Pa. 42, 55-58, 849 A.2d 1135, 1143-44 (2004). Here, presumably, only a rational basis for the discrimination would be required.
. The majority seems to justify such discrimination by stating that “corporations must be represented by legal counsel.” Maj. op. at 732. While many tribunals have such a rule, the Unemployment Compensation Board does not. More fundamentally, not all employers are corporations and, of those that are, many are small businesses with limited sophistication and resources.
. Ironically, it seems to me that, although employers may have increased costs if we require that they hire counsel, it may be claimants who ultimately suffer if they or their lay representatives are outmatched at hearings in which the only lawyer in the room represents the employer.