D. Bryan v. UCBR, D. Bryan v. UCBR

Background

Denise Bryan worked as a full-time phlebotomist for Laboratory Corporation of America from June 30, 2014 to July 25, 2016 and filed for unemployment benefits claiming she voluntarily quit due to "work environment, harassment and discrimination."
Bryan testified she had prior issues with a former supervisor, was transferred to a new supervisor about three weeks before quitting, and resigned after a July 25, 2016 conversation in which the new supervisor criticized her for calling off via voicemail contrary to policy.
Bryan emailed a resignation at the end of that workday citing stress, harassment, and discrimination, and said she had reached her "breaking point" and would not have quit absent that conversation.
Employer’s new supervisor testified she did not harass, threaten, or intimidate Bryan and that her tone was professional when addressing the call-off policy.
An Unemployment Compensation Referee and the Unemployment Compensation Board of Review found Bryan voluntarily quit without a necessitous and compelling cause under Section 402(b) of the Unemployment Compensation Law; Bryan appealed to this Court.

Issues

Issue	Bryan's Argument	Employer/Board's Argument	Held
Whether Bryan quit for a "necessitous and compelling" reason	She quit because of continuous harassment, verbal abuse and retaliation; the July 25 conversation was the final intolerable incident	The conversation was a professional reprimand, not harassment; Bryan did not prove the workplace was intolerable	Court held Bryan did not establish a necessitous and compelling reason to quit
Whether Bryan acted with ordinary common sense and made reasonable efforts to preserve employment	She had previously reported issues about the former supervisor and had reached a breaking point, so further internal reporting was unnecessary	Bryan failed to contact Human Resources or Corporate Office about the July 25 conversation and therefore did not give Employer an opportunity to remedy the situation	Court held Bryan failed to make reasonable efforts to preserve employment (did not exhaust alternatives)
Whether the July 25 reprimand constituted intolerable working conditions	The reprimand was part of ongoing harassment according to Bryan	Employer said the reprimand concerned a policy violation and was not abusive or threatening	Court held the reprimand was not shown to be harassing or intolerable; resentment at a reprimand without abusive conduct does not suffice

Key Cases Cited

Brunswick Hotel & Conference Ctr., 906 A.2d 657 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2006) (elements claimant must prove to show necessitous and compelling cause)
Electrical Reactance Corp. v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 82 A.2d 277 (Pa. Super. 1951) (hostile work environment cases may justify quitting for profanity/abuse/unjust accusations)
Colduvell v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 408 A.2d 1207 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1979) (claimant must inform superiors to allow employer to correct harassment)
Brown v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 780 A.2d 885 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2001) (reporting harassment to an employer representative other than the perpetrator can satisfy common-sense action)
Martin v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 749 A.2d 541 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2000) (same principle regarding reporting harassment)
Porco v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 828 A.2d 426 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2003) (summarizing burden and requirements in hostile work environment/quitting cases)
Lynn v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 427 A.2d 736 (Pa. Cmwlth. 1981) (mere resentment to reprimand or personality conflicts without abusive conduct do not establish necessitous and compelling cause)
Nolan v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 797 A.2d 1042 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2002) (claimant who quits must take all necessary and reasonable steps to preserve employment)
Middletown Township v. Unemployment Compensation Bd. of Review, 40 A.3d 217 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2012) (standard of appellate review for Board decisions)