C.C. Segear v. UCBR, C.C. Segear v. UCBR

Christopher Segear worked as a full‑time shuttle loom fixer for Bally Ribbon Mills from 2007 until August/September 2015 and filed for UC benefits after separation.
Employer handbook contained a policy treating three consecutive no‑call/no‑shows as a self‑termination; Segear acknowledged awareness of the policy.
Segear had documented mental‑health issues and provided a doctor’s note excusing him through August 28, 2015; he texted his supervisor on August 28 that he would return August 31.
Segear did not appear for scheduled shifts on August 31–September 4 and did not personally notify Employer of those absences; Employer sent a separation letter after September 4.
A Referee found Segear voluntarily quit (Section 402(b)); the Board reversed/modifed, finding willful misconduct (Section 402(e)) for violating the attendance policy and denying benefits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether claimant’s five‑day no‑call/no‑show constituted willful misconduct under Section 402(e)	Segear: his mental‑health crisis justified reliance on his mother to notify Employer and to handle leave paperwork (good cause)	Employer: Segear intentionally violated a known attendance policy; no notice = self‑termination/willful misconduct	Board/Court: Willful misconduct established; Segear failed to prove good cause for not notifying Employer; benefits denied
Whether facts should instead be analyzed as voluntary quit under Section 402(b)	Segear: impliedly contends separation was not willful and had necessity (mental health)	Employer: Even if treated as voluntary quit, no necessitous and compelling cause shown	Court: Even under 402(b) same result — no necessitous and compelling cause shown
Whether evidence outside record (mother’s alleged call) can be considered on appeal	Segear: first raised at appeal that mother notified Employer	Employer/Board: No record evidence of mother’s call	Court: Cannot consider facts not in the hearing record; appellate review limited to record
Burden of proof allocation once employer shows policy and violation	Segear: argued good cause exists to shift outcome	Employer: having met initial burden, contends claimant must prove good cause	Court: Employer met burden; burden shifted to claimant who failed to prove good cause

Grieb v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 827 A.2d 422 (Pa. 2003) (definitions of willful misconduct)
Guthrie v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 738 A.2d 518 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1999) (employer bears burden to prove willful misconduct)
Great Valley Publ’g v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 136 A.3d 532 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2016) (once employer proves rule and violation, claimant must show good cause)
Procito v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 945 A.2d 261 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (elements to establish necessitous and compelling cause)
Mercy Hosp. of Pittsburgh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 654 A.2d 264 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1995) (definition of necessitous and compelling cause)
Fitzgerald v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 714 A.2d 1126 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1998) (claimant bears burden to prove necessitous and compelling reasons for quitting)
Wasko v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 488 A.2d 388 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (standards for reviewing causation issues)
Tongel v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 501 A.2d 716 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1985) (employer must show claimant’s rule violation was intentional or deliberate)
Walsh v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 363 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (framework for proving rule existence and violation)
Dep’t of Corr. v. Unemployment Comp. Bd. of Review, 943 A.2d 1011 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (questions of willful misconduct and good cause are legal issues reviewed by the court)