Opinion
No. 2141 C.D. 2013
06-26-2014
Patricia Allen, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE BONNIE BRIGANCE LEADBETTER, Judge HONORABLE P. KEVIN BROBSON, Judge HONORABLE JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY SENIOR JUDGE COLINS
Patricia Allen (Claimant) petitions, pro se, for review of the October 29, 2013 order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) denying Claimant unemployment compensation benefits. The Board concluded that Claimant voluntarily left her employment with Providence Community Services (Employer) without a necessitous and compelling reason and was therefore disqualified from receiving benefits under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law). We affirm.
Act of December 5, 1936, Second Ex. Sess., P.L. (1937) 2897, as amended, 43 P.S. § 802(b). Section 402(b) of the Law provides, in relevant part, that an employee shall be ineligible for compensation for any week in which his or her unemployment is due to voluntarily leaving work without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature.
Claimant's initial internet claim for unemployment compensation was received by the Department of Labor and Industry, Bureau of Unemployment Compensation Benefits (Department) on June 9, 2013. (Record Item (R. Item) 2.) The Department issued a Notice of Determination on June 27, 2013 finding Claimant ineligible for benefits under the Law. (R. Item 4.) Claimant appealed from the Department's determination and a hearing was held before a Referee on July 23, 2013. (R. Item 9, Hearing Transcript (H.T.).) At the hearing, Claimant offered testimony and submitted documentary evidence into the record; Employer did not appear or offer evidence. (Id.) On August 19, 2013, the Referee issued a decision and order finding Claimant ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits because she failed to pursue other alternatives before voluntarily leaving employment to assist her aging parents in their care of her disabled sister. (R. Item 11.) Claimant appealed the Referee's decision and order to the Board, and on October 29, 2013, the Board issued a decision and order affirming the Referee. (R. Item 13.) As a part of its decision, the Board adopted and incorporated as its own the following factual findings from the Referee's decision:
1. The [Claimant] last worked for [Employer] on June 13, 2013 as staff support at a rate of $15.97 per hour.
2. The [Claimant] resigned in a letter to her [Employer] on June 1, 2013 in order that she might relocate closer to her family.
3. The [Claimant] felt compelled to assist her 84 year old parents with the care of her adult sister who suffers from mental disabilities.
4. The [Claimant's] brother lives in New Jersey close to Staten Island but is unable to render the type of assistance needed by the [Claimant's] sister in personal hygiene.
5. The [Claimant's] parents elect not to use services of an organization such as a visiting nurse for cultural reasons.(R. Item 11, Referee's Decision and Order, Findings of Facts (F.F.) ¶¶1-7; R. Item 13, Board's Decision and Order.) Claimant appealed the Board's order to this Court.
6. The [Claimant's] sister is in a work program and is occupied through the work day in the organization which assists those with disabilities.
7. The [Claimant's] residence was approximately two hours from that of her parents before her resignation and relocation.
On appeal, Claimant argues that the Board erred in determining that she did not have a necessitous and compelling reason to voluntarily leave her employment.
In an unemployment compensation appeal, this Court's scope of review is limited to determining whether an error of law was committed, whether constitutional rights were violated, or whether necessary findings of facts are supported by substantial evidence. Section 704 of the Administrative Agency Law, 2 Pa. C.S. § 704; On Line Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 941 A.2d 786, 788 n.7 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). --------
An employee's choice to voluntarily terminate employment does not automatically bar the employee from receiving unemployment compensation benefits. Genetin v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 451 A.2d 1353, 1354 (Pa. 1982). Instead, an employee may receive unemployment compensation if the employee demonstrates that the decision to terminate employment was due to a cause of a necessitous or compelling nature and that prior to leaving, the employee made a reasonable effort to preserve employment. Id. at 1355; Spadaro v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 850 A.2d 855, 860 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2004). A cause of a necessitous and compelling nature has been described by our Supreme Court as resulting "from circumstances which produce pressure to terminate employment that is both real and substantial, and which would compel a reasonable person under the circumstances to act in the same manner." Taylor v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 378 A.2d 829, 832-833 (Pa. 1977); see, e.g. Beachem v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 760 A.2d 68, 71 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (father who voluntarily resigned to care for emotionally and behaviorally disturbed child that was not progressing in grandmother's care had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature, making him eligible for unemployment benefits). Whether a claimant had a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature is a legal conclusion subject to this Court's appellate review, and it is a conclusion which must be drawn from the underlying, case-specific findings of fact. Truitt v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 589 A.2d 208, 210 (Pa. 1991); Taylor, 378 A.2d at 823.
Here, Claimant offered no evidence to demonstrate that she made a reasonable effort to preserve employment prior to her voluntary termination. In Robinson v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 532 A.2d 952 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987), this Court reviewed a denial of benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law where a claimant resigned her employment in order to relocate to North Carolina and care for an ill parent. Examining a prior case, Renosky v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 434 A.2d 887 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981), where a claimant had also voluntarily left employment to assist aging and ill parents, we determined that as with the claimant in Renosky, the claimant in Robinson failed to present evidence that she had explored other alternatives prior to terminating employment, such as relocating her sick father or taking a leave of absence. Robinson, 532 A.2d at 953-954; see also Draper v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 718 A.2d 383 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (claimant who resigned to care for his ill mother in Virginia was ineligible for unemployment benefits because he failed to demonstrate that he "explored other options less drastic than quitting his job, such as purchasing a home in Pennsylvania in which to care for his mother or asking [employer] for a leave of absence or some other accommodation.").
Claimant submitted a resignation letter to her Employer on June 1, 2013. (F.F. ¶2.) In her letter, Claimant informed Employer of the family issues leading to her resignation, but she failed to discuss the issues with her Employer prior to her resignation or to seek alternatives to resigning. (H.T. at 7.) Claimant testified before the Referee that she elected to resign in June because:
It was the end of the school year. It was a transition for my client going from middle school, to high school. It was—to me I saw it as a perfect time to be transitioned away from one of my clients that I've been [with] for a long time.(H.T. at 8.) Claimant also described in her testimony her need to be close to her parents and to assist them with the care of her sister:
To assist and comfort my parents. I mean it's not like I don't want to work. I absolutely want to work. I just needed to be closer, God forbid—to my parents—my father collided with my sister last night and my sister had to go to the hospital. She hurt her ankle. I rode in the ambulance and my father and mother followed. It's just a matter of being in close proximity.(H.T. at 8.) While we agree wholeheartedly with the Referee that Claimant's commitment to her family and the consideration she showed for her clients and Employer is laudable, we also agree with the Referee and the Board that Claimant is ineligible for unemployment compensation benefits under Section 402(b) of the Law. Claimant did not attempt to preserve her employment. Claimant did not resign because she was without options. Claimant made a choice and that choice is not recognized as a cause of a necessitous and compelling nature under Section 402(b) of the Law.
The order of the Board is affirmed.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge ORDER
AND NOW, this 26th day of June, 2014, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
JAMES GARDNER COLINS, Senior Judge