Opinion
No. 1773 C.D. 2011
03-23-2012
Claudia J. Meyer, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge OPINION NOT REPORTED MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE LEADBETTER
Claimant Claudia J. Meyer petitions pro se for review of the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board), which affirmed the denial of benefits on the ground that Meyer lacked a necessitous and compelling reason to terminate her employment. We affirm.
According to the referee's pertinent findings, which the Board adopted as its own, as well as the record of testimony, Meyer resigned from her employment with Shire Pharmaceuticals (Employer) on May 14, 2010. Prior to her resignation, Meyer had experienced various issues with a few of her co-workers and her supervisor. In December 2008, Meyer asked to meet with a human resource (HR) representative regarding some of her workplace issues. A HR representative attempted to set up a meeting at a later time but Meyer indicated that she was not available because she was pursuing other positions in the company. Although Meyer continued to have some workplace concerns, she never indicated to Employer that she was considering resigning or that she felt that she was the subject of discrimination.
Meyer appeared at the hearing before the referee with counsel and testified on her own behalf. Three witnesses appeared on behalf of Employer, although it appears that only two testified: Janet Nickley, Meyer's director, and Danielle Baker, a human resource representative. Meyer indicated to the referee that she expected several co-workers to appear and testify on her behalf but they declined to come at the last minute due to their fear that their jobs might be jeopardized.
Subsequently, two events occurred on May 14, Meyer's last day of work, which influenced her decision to resign. First, Meyer participated in a meeting with co-workers and management. During that meeting, Meyer repeatedly questioned a supervisor about events concerning her team. Despite the supervisor's answers, Meyer continued to question her further. According to the testimony of Meyer's director, Janet Nickley, the meeting was terminated because of Meyer's questions and behavior. In addition, Meyer, as well as other employees in the company, received an email from a co-worker in Meyer's department (Carmen) wherein she shared photographs that were taken at a recent sporting event attended by a number of employees. Apparently, the majority of the pictures depicted Carmen and/or Carmen's friend. Meyer, referring to the large number of photos of Carmen and her friend, stated in a responsive email to all in the distribution list (i.e., a "Reply All" email), that she "guessed the camera got sidetracked." Referee's decision/order at 2, Finding of Fact No. 7. The referee then made the following findings regarding these two events:
The director of the claimant's department [Janet Nickley] called the claimant in for a meeting that day . . . and told the claimant that she felt the interaction with the supervisor in the meeting was inappropriate because the supervisor had answered her questions and the supervisor was upset because she had lost her father the day before.Id., Findings of Fact Nos. 8-12. The referee noted that despite Meyer's on-going employment issues, Meyer only attempted to address her concerns on one occasion with a HR representative and then failed to schedule a meeting to discuss the issues in detail. The referee further observed that, while Meyer was dissatisfied with certain aspects of her work prior to May 14, "she did not leave the employment because of these issues but specifically left because of what she felt were slanderous comments made by the director on her last day of work." Id. at 3. Based upon the evidence and his findings, the referee found that the director's comments, made in her supervisory capacity, were not so slanderous or unreasonable that they provided Meyer with necessitous and compelling cause to quit. Accordingly, benefits were denied. An appeal followed and the Board ultimately affirmed.
The claimant was also told that the director felt her response in the email was a snide response about the camera because the person who was posting the pictures was just putting her personal pictures on the computer and other individuals would also post pictures and the claimant had the opportunity to do the same.
The director indicated she felt the claimant may owe that person an apology and the claimant indicated she did not owe anyone an apology.
After the meeting, the claimant was upset about these allegations made about her and indicated she felt they were slanderous.
As a result, the claimant submitted a resignation letter to the employer indicating she was resigning within a two week period.
During the hearing, Meyer introduced a portion of Janet Nickley's "Performance Management Form 2009," which stated that one of Nickley's business objectives was to: "Effectively manage development or exit strategy for Claudia Meyer or any other staff needing help." Exhibit C-2 to Notes of Testimony, Hearing of July 9, 2010. Apparently, Meyer discovered this document among copies of her own performance reviews, which she took with her when she terminated her employment. In response to questioning by Meyer's counsel, Nickley denied that the exit strategy was to reformulate Meyer's job in way that would cause Meyer to terminate her employment. The referee made no findings regarding this document or testimony.
The referee did note, however, that because Meyer was willing to work an additional two weeks but was asked to leave on the day she gave her notice, benefits could not be denied under Section 402(b) during that two-week period. As a result, benefits were allowed for compensable weeks ending May 22, 2010, and May 29, 2010.
Initially, the Board remanded to allow Meyer to subpoena witnesses she had intended to present at her hearing but who failed to show up. Meyer did not subpoena the witnesses as permitted and they did not appear at the subsequent hearing. Accordingly, the Board declined to consider any testimony presented at that hearing. The Board adopted the referee's findings and conclusions and affirmed the denial of benefits. Following Meyer's appeal to this court, the Board sought to remit the appeal in order to consider facts that it had originally failed to consider. Following our remission, the Board vacated its prior order and then affirmed the referee's decision and order, again adopting the referee's findings and conclusions. In doing so, however, the Board specifically addressed Exhibit C-2 (Nickley's Performance Management Form), noting that it credited Nickley's testimony that she was not creating a working environment that left Meyer with no other option but to leave and discrediting Meyer's testimony that she was forced out of her position.
Initially, we note that a claimant who voluntarily terminates her employment is ineligible for benefits unless she demonstrates necessitous and compelling reasons for her termination. Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), 43 P.S. § 802(b). In general, normal workplace strains and pressures do not constitute adequate cause to quit. See generally Ann Kearney Astolfi DMD PC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 995 A.2d 1286 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010). Moreover, resentment of a reprimand, absent unjust accusations, and personality conflicts, absent an intolerable working atmosphere, do not present necessitous and compelling causes to quit a job. Id. See also Gioia v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 661 A.2d 34 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). However, cause to quit may exist where the employee is continuously subject to unjust accusations or abusive conduct, Whisner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 446 A.2d 336 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1982), or where the relationship with a superior or co-worker has deteriorated to the point where working conditions are intolerable, Karloff v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 531 A.2d 582 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987).
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended. --------
In the present appeal, Meyer essentially argues that she demonstrated necessitous and compelling cause to quit because she was the victim of a systematic campaign of harassment designed to force her to voluntarily quit her job or to provoke a response from her which would provide Employer with cause to terminate her. In support, she points to Exhibit C-2, which states that one of her director's 2009 performance objectives was to design an "exit strategy" for her. In making this argument, she takes issue with the Board's general fact-finding and credibility determinations, especially with regard to Employer's witness, Ms. Nickley. Meyer contends that the Board erred in accepting Nickley's testimony over hers because Exhibit C-2 supports her version of the facts, that is, that Employer intended to create a hostile working environment for her. These contentions lack merit.
It is well settled that the Board is the ultimate fact-finder and if findings are supported by substantial evidence, they are conclusive on appeal. Craighead-Jenkins v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 796 A.2d 1031 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). In its role as fact-finder, the Board is empowered to determine witness credibility and may accept or reject, in whole or in part, the testimony of any witness. McCarthy v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 829 A.2d 1266 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003).
Here, while Meyer clearly felt that she was unfairly criticized or reprimanded for the events that occurred on her last day of work, the Board, as fact-finder, accepted Employer's testimony regarding the events and that Meyer's behavior was inappropriate in the circumstances. The credited testimony does not support a finding that Meyer was harassed, or repeatedly subject to unwarranted criticism or reprimands, or that the events of May 14 constituted abusive or intolerable conduct by Meyer's director. According to the findings, Nickley, in a private meeting, merely indicated that she thought that Meyer acted inappropriately on each occasion and suggested that an apology may be in order, which Meyer refused to provide. We agree that such circumstances do not present necessitous and compelling cause to quit. Finally, the Board was free to reject Meyer's version of the events and credit the testimony of Employer's witnesses; these matters are not subject to our review.
The order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 23rd day of March, 2012, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is affirmed.
/s/_________
BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER,
Judge