A.M. Lincoski v. UCBR, A.M. Lincoski v. UCBR

Claimant Anita M. Lincoski worked as a phlebotomist for Correct Care Solutions at a state correctional institution and was suspended in December 2015, returning to work February 17, 2016.
Upon return, Claimant’s supervisor outlined procedures Claimant was required to follow; Claimant thereafter made deliberate errors to test the supervisor and reported a personality conflict to the regional manager (Manager).
Manager held a meeting in March 2016 with Claimant and the supervisor to address the conflict; an argument occurred, Claimant left the meeting, and when asked whether she was resigning, she responded affirmatively (using profanity).
Claimant did not report the issue to Manager’s supervisor in human resources or pursue other remedial steps available to her, and she testified she was not threatened with discipline.
The Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found Claimant voluntarily quit based on a personality conflict, failed to prove intolerable working conditions, and did not take reasonable steps to preserve employment; the Board denied UC benefits under Section 402(b).
The Commonwealth Court affirmed, holding the Board’s findings were supported by substantial evidence and that Claimant did not establish a necessitous and compelling cause to quit.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Claimant voluntarily quit or was constructively discharged	Lincoski: supervisor’s degrading, humiliating treatment forced her to leave (not voluntary)	Board/Employer: Claimant walked out and affirmed she was quitting; evidence supports voluntary quit	Held: Voluntary quit supported by substantial evidence
Whether Claimant showed necessitous and compelling cause to quit	Lincoski: hostile work environment produced real and substantial pressure to quit	Employer: conflict was personality-based; no intolerable conduct or threats; remedies were available and unused	Held: No — Claimant failed to prove necessitous and compelling cause
Whether Claimant made reasonable efforts to preserve employment	Lincoski: she notified Manager of the conflict and attended the meeting	Employer: Claimant did not follow up with higher HR or pursue available remedies; left meeting instead of exhausting options	Held: Claimant did not make reasonable efforts to preserve employment
Whether the Board’s factual findings are supported by substantial evidence	Lincoski: disputes Board credibility findings and factual resolutions	Employer: Board resolved conflicting testimony in Employer’s favor; credibility determinations are for the Board	Held: Substantial evidence supports the Board’s findings and credibility determinations

Ductmate Indus., Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 949 A.2d 338 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (Board is ultimate fact-finder; appellate review limited to substantial-evidence standard)
Umdeman v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 52 A.3d 558 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (definition of substantial evidence)
Bell v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 921 A.2d 23 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2007) (distinguishing voluntary quit from discharge)
Tapco, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 650 A.2d 1106 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1994) (conflicting testimony is not grounds for reversal when Board’s findings are supported)
Smithly v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 8 A.3d 1027 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2010) (definition of necessitous and compelling cause)
Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., LLC v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements required to establish necessitous and compelling cause)
Mansberger v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 785 A.2d 126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (burden on employee to prove necessitous and compelling cause)
Tom Tobin Wholesale v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 600 A.2d 680 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1991) (mere dissatisfaction with employer policies or procedures is insufficient)
Uniontown Newspapers, Inc. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 558 A.2d 627 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1989) (personality conflicts do not amount to necessitous and compelling cause absent intolerable conduct)