Opinion
No. 817 C.D. 2013
12-16-2013
Reginald Rhodes, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge HONORABLE PATRICIA A. McCULLOUGH, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE SIMPSON
Reginald Rhodes (Claimant), representing himself, petitions for review of an order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that affirmed the decision of the referee and denied him unemployment benefits. The Board determined Claimant was ineligible pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law) because he voluntarily terminated his employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Claimant asserts he was compelled to quit because he was the subject of a hostile work environment based on discrimination for sincerely-held religious beliefs. Discerning no error, we affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. §802(b).
After resigning from his position with Southwestern Veterans' Center (Employer), Claimant applied for unemployment compensation benefits, which the local service center denied. Claimant appealed to the referee. At the hearing, Claimant and a witness for Employer testified. Based on the testimony and other evidence presented, the referee determined Claimant was ineligible under Section 402(b) of the Law.
Claimant appealed to the Board, which made the following findings. Claimant worked for Employer as a food service worker from September 2001 until his last day of employment on September 27, 2012. In 2002, Claimant's job duties included portioning food items according to counts and portion sizes indicated in portioning sheets. Bd. Op., 3/21/13, Findings of Fact (F.F.) Nos. 1-2.
In 2009, Employer modified Claimant's job duties to include the preparation of food or table arrangements for special holiday functions, and the decoration of the dining area with holiday themes. Claimant "signed off" on both job descriptions. F.F. No. 4.
In 2009, Claimant notified Employer that his religious beliefs prevented him from participating in religious holidays, including Christmas, Thanksgiving, Easter, St. Patrick's Day, and St. Valentine's Day. Employer sought to accommodate Claimant's religious beliefs by not requesting him to assist in the preparation of holiday-themed table arrangements or other decorations. Employer gave Claimant leave for several holiday parties. F.F. Nos. 5-7.
In April 2012, Claimant requested off for the Easter luncheon. Employer denied the request due to staffing issues. Employer has the right, pursuant to union agreement, to cancel leave requests when required by staffing demands. Claimant filed a grievance with the union over the denial of his request. Claimant was not involved in the actual Easter celebration. Claimant continued to work for Employer after the incident. F.F. Nos. 8-13.
In June 2012, Employer assigned Claimant the duty of setting placemats and napkins for the Father's Day celebration. On two separate occasions that day, at 9:30 a.m. and 11:20 a.m., Claimant gave no indication to his supervisors that his religious beliefs prevented him from setting the table. At 11:50 a.m., 10 minutes prior to the start of the event, Claimant refused to set the table on religious grounds. Consequently, the Father's Day luncheon table settings were not completed in a timely fashion. F.F. Nos. 14-17.
Employer held a pre-disciplinary conference with Claimant, during which Claimant advised that setting up for the Father's Day luncheon violated his religious beliefs. On September 4, 2012, Employer sent Claimant a letter suspending him for three days, effective September 11, 2012, for refusing to set up for the Father's Day luncheon. On September 5, 2012, Claimant resigned his position, effective September 27, 2012. F.F. Nos. 18-20.
Although Claimant argued Employer compelled him to quit by subjecting him to a hostile work environment and discriminating against him for sincerely-held religious beliefs, the Board rejected this argument. The Board explained Claimant notified Employer he could not participate in decorating and setting tables for religious celebrations. Employer accommodated this request.
However, Claimant did not notify Employer that his beliefs also precluded him from participating in secular holidays, such as Father's Day. Employer was within its right to suspend Claimant for refusing to perform his work duties. The Board concluded Employer's actions did not create a hostile work environment for Claimant that produced substantial pressure to terminate his employment. Based on these findings, the Board determined Claimant voluntarily left his employment without a necessitous and compelling reason and denied benefits.
In the opinion, the Board denied benefits pursuant to "Section 402(e) of the Law" (willful misconduct). However, the appropriate citation is Section 402(b) of the Law, which renders an employee ineligible for benefits for voluntary termination, not Section 402(e).
From this decision, Claimant petitions for review. Claimant contends the Board erred by denying benefits where he proved his separation from employment was attributable to Employer's illegal actions. Although the job was initially suitable, Employer altered the terms of employment to include decorating and arranging tables for holiday functions. Claimant asserts participating in any holiday is a violation of a cardinal principle of his religious faith. Employer's conduct violated Claimant's freedom of religion guaranteed by the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution and by Section 702(a)(1) of Title VII of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. §2000e-2(a)(1). Employer's actions effectively penalized him for the free exercise of his constitutional liberties and compelled him to quit.
Our review is limited to determining whether the necessary findings of fact were supported by substantial evidence, whether errors of law were committed, or whether constitutional rights were violated. Oliver v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 5 A.3d 432 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010).
Section 702(a)(1) provides: "It shall be an unlawful employment practice for an employer--(1) to fail or refuse to hire or to discharge any individual, or otherwise to discriminate against any individual with respect to his compensation, terms, conditions, or privileges of employment, because of such individual's race, color, religion, sex, or national origin ...." --------
The Board is the ultimate fact-finder in unemployment compensation matters and is empowered to resolve all conflicts in evidence, witness credibility, and weight accorded to the evidence. Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). It is irrelevant whether the record contains evidence to support findings other than those made by the fact-finder; the critical inquiry is whether there is evidence to support the findings actually made. Id. Where substantial evidence supports the Board's findings, they are conclusive on appeal. Id.
Section 402(b) of the Law provides a claimant is ineligible for compensation benefits for any week in which his unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without necessitous and compelling cause. 43 P.S. §802(b). An employee who claims to have left employment for a necessitous and compelling reason must show:
(1) circumstances existed which produced real and substantial pressure to terminate employment; (2) such circumstances would compel a reasonable person to act in the same manner; (3) the claimant acted with ordinary common sense;
and, (4) the claimant made a reasonable effort to preserve [his] employment.Solar Innovations, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 38 A.3d 1051, 1056 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012). The question of whether an employee has a necessitous and compelling reason to terminate employment is a question of law reviewable by this Court. Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
Infringement on one's religious beliefs may qualify as a necessitous and compelling cause for an employee to voluntarily terminate the employment relationship. Thomas v. Review Bd. of the Indiana Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707 (1981); Monroe v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 535 A.2d 1222 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1988).
In Thomas, the United States Supreme Court held that the State of Indiana's denial of unemployment compensation violated a claimant's First Amendment right to free exercise of religion, where the claimant, a Jehovah's Witness, quit his job after the employer transferred him to a department that fabricated turrets for military tanks. The Supreme Court noted that the claimant's termination flowed from the fact that the employment, once acceptable, became religiously objectionable because of changed conditions. Thomas, 450 U.S. at 718. The Supreme Court stated:
Where the state conditions receipt of an important benefit upon conduct proscribed by a religious faith, or where it denies such a benefit because of conduct mandated by religious belief, thereby putting substantial pressure on
an adherent to modify his behavior or to violate his beliefs, a burden upon religion exists.Id. at 717-718.
In Monroe, this Court applied Thomas and addressed the framework for a determination as to whether sincerely-held religious beliefs conflict with job duties. We opined:
The First Amendment right to the free exercise of religion applies to a sincerely held religious belief .... Accordingly, an actual conflict between one's sincerely held religious beliefs and his or her employment conditions may constitute cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily terminating employment ....Monroe, 535 A.2d at 1224.
Nevertheless, an employee who is compelled to quit on religious grounds must inform his employer of the conflict between his religious beliefs and work duties. Curry v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 503 A.2d 1007 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1986); see Mathis v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 64 A.3d 293 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2013). The purpose of this rule is to give the employer an opportunity to find other work which would not infringe on the employee's exercise of his religious beliefs. Curry.
Likewise, where harassment is alleged, the claimant must notify the employer of the harassing conduct and make a common sense effort to preserve employment. Porco v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 828 A.2d 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003). Failure to report harassment may be excused where the record evidence reveals that doing so would be futile. Martin v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000).
Here, in 2011, pursuant to a directive from the classification department of the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, Employer modified Claimant's job description to include assisting in the preparation of food or table arrangements for holiday functions. Referee's Hr'g, Notes of Testimony (N.T.), 1/8/13, at 10. Claimant contends he notified Employer that his religious beliefs would not allow him to participate in any holiday celebrations - religious and secular - and Employer did not accommodate him. However, the record does not support this assertion.
Although there is no dispute Claimant notified Employer regarding his inability to participate in religious holidays due to his religious beliefs, Claimant did not demonstrate he informed Employer his religious beliefs extended to secular holidays as well. For instance, in 2009, Claimant advised Employer he could not participate in the Christmas luncheon. Claimant wrote Employer a letter explaining his religious beliefs do not allow him to participate in Christmas celebrations of any kind. N.T. at 4; Claimant's Exs. Nos. 4 & 5 (Claimant's letters to Employer). In the letter, Claimant requested "not to participate in these religious activities." Claimant's Ex. No. 5 (latter emphasis added). However, there is no mention regarding secular holidays. See Claimant's Exs. Nos. 4 & 5.
Additionally, in March 2012, Claimant requested off for the Easter luncheon. Claimant's Ex. No. 7. He notified Employer that he could not celebrate the birth or death of Jesus Christ. Id. Although Employer required Claimant to work Easter 2012 because of staffing issues, Employer did not require him to decorate, and it shielded Claimant from any direct involvement in the Easter celebration. N.T. at 10, 11. Claimant continued working after Easter, demonstrating his religious beliefs were not the impetus to quit.
As for the Father's Day luncheon, however, Claimant offered no evidence that he timely notified Employer his participation in this luncheon violated his religious beliefs. Although Claimant contends Employer denied his leave request for the Father's Day luncheon, the record lacks evidence to corroborate his request or Employer's denial. Additionally, Claimant waited until 10 minutes prior to the luncheon to inform his supervisors that his religious beliefs prohibited him from setting the table, despite opportunities to notify Employer of the conflict earlier that day.
Even Claimant's resignation letter did not inform Employer that the conflict between his religious convictions and work duties compelled him to quit. Employer's Ex. No. 5. Rather, Claimant merely indicated he wanted to spend more time with his family. Id.
Contrary to Claimant's assertions, the prior notices regarding Christmas, Easter, and days associated with Catholic saints, did not place Employer on notice that Claimant's religious beliefs extended to holidays with no obvious religious connection. It is an employee's responsibility to advise his employer of any conflicts between religious beliefs and job duties. Mathis; Curry. An employee should not assume his employer knows the tenets of his religious faith and how they may conflict with the duties of employment. See Mathis.
Furthermore, notice to Employer prior to resigning would not have been a futile act. See Martin. The record reveals that, when timely notified, Employer made appropriate accommodations for Claimant's religious beliefs. Employer either granted Claimant's leave requests or shielded Claimant from the holiday celebrations. N.T. at 10, 11; Employer's Exs. Nos. 1 & 2; Claimant's Ex. No. 2.
The record supports the Board's finding that Claimant did not advise Employer his religious beliefs precluded him from participating in secular holidays, such as Father's Day, Mother's Day, Independence Day, Labor Day or Veterans' Day. Claimant did not give Employer a reasonable opportunity to accommodate his religious beliefs before resigning. We, therefore, conclude Claimant did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason to quit.
Accordingly, we affirm.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 16th day of December, 2013, the order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review is AFFIRMED.
/s/_________
ROBERT SIMPSON, Judge