Opinion
No. 1004 C.D. 2012
01-25-2013
Diana M. Robertson, Petitioner v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, Respondent
BEFORE: HONORABLE RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge HONORABLE MARY HANNAH LEAVITT, Judge HONORABLE ANNE E. COVEY, Judge
OPINION NOT REPORTED
MEMORANDUM OPINION BY JUDGE COHN JUBELIRER
Diane M. Robertson (Claimant), pro se, petitions for review of the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review (Board) that reversed the determination of an Unemployment Compensation Referee (Referee) and found that, pursuant to Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law (Law), Claimant was ineligible for unemployment compensation (UC) benefits because Claimant did not establish that she had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily leaving her job. On appeal, Claimant argues that she did have such cause because: her working conditions were intolerable due to public verbal abuse by the owner (Owner) of Tucker Chiropractic Center (Employer); she had a medical condition, post-traumatic stress disorder (PTSD), that was exacerbated, forcing her to quit her job; and she made reasonable efforts to preserve her employment by suggesting she change positions with another employee, which Owner rejected. Discerning no error, 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 that a claimant is ineligible for compensation if her unemployment is due to her voluntarily leaving her employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. Id.
Claimant worked as an office manager for Employer from August 2005 until November 17, 2011, when she voluntarily quit her position. Claimant filed an application for UC benefits, which the Philadelphia UC Service Center (Service Center) denied. (Notice of Determination, R. Item 4.) Claimant appealed the Service Center's denial, and the matter was assigned to the Referee. The Referee held a hearing, at which Claimant and Owner testified. The Referee credited Claimant's testimony that, in front of staff that Claimant managed, Owner criticized her regarding her work and blamed Claimant for causing some of Employer's patients to leave the practice. The Referee found that these criticisms "left Claimant without the ability to effectively manage the staff." (Referee Decision, Findings of Fact (FOF) ¶ 5, R. Item. 9.) The Referee concluded that Owner's criticism of Claimant in front of the other employees had reached the point that it provided Claimant with no choice but to quit her employment. (Referee Decision at 2.) Therefore, the Referee reversed the Service Center's determination and found Claimant eligible for benefits.
Employer appealed to the Board, which made the following findings of fact.
1. For the purposes of this appeal, the claimant was last employed by Tucker Chiropractic Center as an office manager from August of 2005 until November 17, 2011, at an hourly rate of $12.00.
2. The claimant testified that the employer constantly blamed her for patients who left the practice and criticized her in front of other staff members.
3. The employer testified that he sometimes became emotional when he discussed the claimant's work performance with her, but for the majority of these conversations, he would speak with the claimant in his office using a calm tone of voice and asked the claimant what he could do to improve the work situation.
4. The claimant testified that at least one patient and her husband informed her that they were leaving the employer's practice because they were dissatisfied with the claimant's interactions when she cared for the husband.
5. The claimant testified that, approximately three days before her final day of work, the employer called her into his office and stated that she was bringing the practice down because patients found the claimant's front-desk interactions to be unsatisfactory.
6. During this meeting, the employer also said that the claimant left a "bad taste in the mouth" of the patients who had decided to quit the employer's practice.
7. The claimant testified that she suffers from post-traumatic stress disorder that was triggered on November 17, 2011, when another patient called and told the claimant that she was leaving the employer's practice because the claimant "left a bad taste in her mouth."
8. The claimant testified that, after she received this patient call, she felt like everything "just fell apart," she became afraid that the employer would yell at her for causing another patient to leave the practice, and she decided to take her personal belongings and leave.
9. The claimant quit on November 17, 2011.(Board Op., FOF ¶¶ 1-9.) The Board held that Claimant's claim that the November 17, 2011 phone call triggered her PTSD did not constitute cause of necessitous and compelling nature to justify her quitting her job because, where a claimant quits for health reasons, the claimant must establish, inter alia, that she informed her employer that her medical condition prevented her from completing her assigned duties. Here, the Board determined that Claimant quit without informing Employer of her medical issues. Additionally, the Board concluded that Claimant did not prove that she left due to a hostile work environment because Claimant did not establish that Employer made unjust accusations or otherwise made her work environment intolerable. In so concluding, the Board credited Owner's testimony "that, during a majority of his conversations with the claimant regarding her work performance, he spoke with the claimant in his office, used a calm tone of voice, and asked . . . what he could do to improve the work situation." (Board Op. at 3.) For these reasons, the Board reversed the Referee's determination and concluded that Claimant was ineligible for UC benefits because she had not met her burden of proving that she had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature for voluntarily leaving her employment. Claimant now petitions this Court for review.
"The Court's review is limited to determining whether constitutional rights were violated, whether an error of law was committed, whether a practice or procedure of the Board was not followed or whether the findings of fact are supported by substantial evidence in the record." Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331, 334 n.2 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006). The Board's findings of fact are conclusive on appeal as long as they are supported by substantial evidence in the record. Grieb v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 573 Pa. 594, 599, 827 A.2d 422, 425 (2003). Substantial evidence is defined as "such relevant evidence which a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion." Philadelphia Gas Works v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 654 A.2d 153, 157 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). In making this determination, we "must view the record in a light most favorable to the party which prevailed before the Board, giving that party the benefit of all logical and reasonable inferences deducible from the evidence." Stringent v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 703 A.2d 1084, 1087 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1997).
On appeal, Claimant asserts that she was subjected to circumstances that produced real and substantial pressure on her to voluntarily terminate her employment; specifically, Owner's verbal abuse towards her and her PTSD, which was exacerbated by Owner's criticism and the November 17, 2011 phone call from an unhappy patient. Claimant argues that Owner singling her out and criticizing her in front of the staff she was supposed to manage pressured her into quitting her position and that a reasonable person would do the same under those circumstances. According to Claimant, she attempted to take reasonable and good faith efforts to maintain her employment by offering to switch positions with a co-worker to lessen her exposure to the issues that resulted in Owner's reprimands. Claimant contends that the Referee correctly concluded that Owner's mistreatment inhibited Claimant's ability to supervise the other employees and that "Claimant was left with no viable place to seek a remedy and no choice but to terminate her employment." (Claimant's Br. at 11.)
Section 402(b) of the Law provides that a claimant is ineligible for compensation if her unemployment is due to her voluntarily leaving employment without cause of a necessitous and compelling nature. 43 P.S. § 802(b). Since Claimant voluntarily left her employment, it was her burden to show that she had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to do so. Latzy v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 487 A.2d 121, 122 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985). To satisfy this burden, Claimant must demonstrate that: "(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 her employment." Brunswick Hotel & Conference Center, LLC v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 906 A.2d 657, 660 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006).
We first address Claimant's assertions of eligibility for UC benefits based on an alleged exacerbation of her PTSD. It is well settled "that medical reasons can provide necessitous and compelling reasons for a voluntarily quit and that a claimant bears the burden of proving that such reasons precipitated the quit." Fox v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 522 A.2d 713, 715 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1987). If a claimant terminates her employment for medical reasons and seeks UC benefits, she must prove that "adequate health reasons existed to justify the voluntary termination, [she] communicat[ed] such reasons to her employer, and [was] . . . available to work if reasonable accommodations [had] be[en] made." Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 797 A.2d 1042, 1046 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002). The claimant can satisfy her burden by providing competent evidence, including her own testimony or documentary evidence, regarding the health reasons. Lee Hospital v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 637 A.2d 695, 698 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). As part of communicating the health reasons to the employer, the claimant should "explain why [s]he cannot continue to perform [her] job duties." Bailey v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 653 A.2d 711, 713-14 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995). Requiring the claimant to communicate her medical reasons to the employer and remain available for work if reasonable accommodations can be made ensures that the claimant took all necessary and reasonable steps to preserve her employment relationship. Nolan, 797 A.2d at 1046-47. If a claimant fails to meet any of these requirements, she is barred from receiving UC benefits. Lee Hospital, 637 A.2d at 698.
Claimant argues that "there is no dispute that [she] has [PTSD]" and her PTSD was exacerbated by Owner's actions and the November 17, 2011 phone call. (Claimant's Br. at 11.) However, even if Claimant's assertion is correct, Claimant was required to communicate her health conditions to Employer so that accommodations could be made to permit her to continue to work. There is no indication in the record that Claimant ever advised Owner of this medical condition or "explain[ed] why [s]he [could not] continue to perform [her] job duties" due to her PTSD. Bailey, 653 A.2d at 713-14. By not communicating with Owner or anyone else at Employer, Claimant did not give Employer the opportunity to offer reasonable accommodations for that medical condition and, therefore, she has not met the requirements to receive UC benefits on that basis. Lee Hospital, 637 A.2d at 698.
We now address Claimant's argument that her working conditions were intolerable because of Owner's ongoing verbal abuse and actions in singling Claimant out for criticism. Abusive, hostile, or intolerable working environments can justify a voluntary quit. Western and Southern Life Insurance Co. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 913 A.2d 331, 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006); Magazzeni v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 462 A.2d 961, 962 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1983). However, "mere dissatisfaction with working conditions or resentment of a supervisor's criticisms" or a mere personality conflict, absent an intolerable work atmosphere, does not constitute necessitous and compelling reasons to voluntary quit employment. Magazzeni, 462 A.2d at 962. The Board credited Owner's testimony that he treated everyone in the office equally and, "during a majority of his conversations with the claimant regarding her work performance, he spoke with the claimant in his office, used a calm tone of voice, and asked . . . what he could do to improve the work situation." (Board Op. at 3; Hr'g Tr. at 13-14.) The Board is the ultimate finder of fact in UC cases and questions regarding the weight of the evidence and witness credibility are solely within its province. First Federal Savings Bank v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 957 A.2d 811, 815 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008). That a claimant might believe a different version of the events took place does not create grounds for reversal if the Board's findings are supported by substantial evidence. Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Compensation Board of Review, 650 A.2d 1106, 1108-09 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994). Here, Claimant relies on her own version of the facts and the Referee's findings of fact to support her argument. However, as mentioned, under the Law, it is the Board, not the Referee, that is the ultimate finder of fact and the Board credited Owner's version of the events in this matter rather than Claimant's version. Owner's credited testimony contradicts Claimant's assertions that he singled Claimant out and subjected her to frequent verbal abuse and criticisms in front of her co-workers. The Board was within its province to believe Owner's testimony rather than Claimant's conflicting testimony. First Federal Savings Bank, 957 A.2d at 815. In addition, Claimant herself testified that at least two patients did leave the practice because of dissatisfaction with Claimant's interactions with them. Based on this credited testimony, the Board did not err in concluding that Claimant did not sustain her burden of proving that she had cause of a necessitous and compelling nature to voluntarily quit her employment and, therefore, Claimant was not eligible for UC benefits.
Because Claimant did not satisfy her burden of proving that her work environment was intolerable, she cannot meet all of the requirements for eligibility of UC benefits; therefore, we do not reach the issue of whether Claimant made reasonable efforts to maintain her employment. Brunswick Hotel and Conference Center, 906 A.2d at 660. We note, however, that Claimant asserts that she made reasonable efforts to maintain her employment by suggesting that she switch places with another employee. There is no indication in the record that, other than this one-time suggestion, Claimant ever took Owner up on his offers to "do [something] to improve the work condition." (Hr'g Tr. at 14.) --------
Accordingly, the Board's Order is affirmed.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge ORDER
NOW, January 25, 2013, the Order of the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review in the above-captioned matter is hereby AFFIRMED.
/s/ _________
RENÉE COHN JUBELIRER, Judge