In Sheaffer v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 92 Pa. Commw. 431, 499 A.2d 1121 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985), the Court stated that the factors relevant to this determination included the specific nature of the offense, but no single factor was necessarily dispositive of the issue of whether the claimant's conduct reflected adversely on his fitness to do his job. "Rather, if an examination of all relevant circumstances, including especially the nature of the conduct in question, leads to the conclusion that a claimant's conduct is incompatible with his job responsibilities, then the second prong of the Derk test (Unemployment Compensation Board of Review v. Derk ) is satisfied. While a consideration of a claimant's specifically assigned duties may be relevant to this determination, if it is otherwise apparent that the claimant's conduct was inimical to the interests of his employer, it is not necessary for an employer to present into evidence a description of a claimant's specific duties." Id., 502 A.2d at 737.